[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Stopping aid to India
Re: Stopping aid to India
A few more years, yep, ok end it in 2015 as was discussed.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Stopping aid to India
Put much better than me, we'll said Rod.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
I feel prouder of my country precisely because it does acknowledge some responsibility - as I've said before, I'm not particularly interested in 'guilt' - towards those whom it has exploited in the past or is continuing to exploit today.rod taylor wrote: Like it or not. It is time to rid ourselves of the shackles of post-colonial guilt and develop some national pride.
Possibly, but that's for the Germans to decide, not us.( I believe they did in fact make very large payments to Jewish organisations and to the state of Israel.) Reparations imposed by the victors would not have been a good idea, as what happened after WWI showed. The Western powers decided after WWII that they wanted a prosperous West German economy, not one crippled by reparations.rod taylor wrote: By your logic Germany should now be paying for the decade of austerity that followed the second world war.
-
14BradfordRoad
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Stopping aid to India
As already pointed out we have people of our own sleeping out on our cold streets, their
numbers are very likely to grow unless we throw them a lifeline of some sort. I would say
that we 'as a country' have a duty to do this.
You can't have austerity measures that adversely affect many of our own people pushing
them nearer to poverty and continue to dish out money to countries that financially can and
must now begin to resolve their own problems. Throwing guilt money at them won't ever
buy a clear concience for mistakes of the past or help people of the past, too late for them!
All countries have a duty to their citizens whether they choose to acknowledge this or not!
Dishing out aid to undeserving 'not poor' countries (eg: India. Argentina) doesn't resolve
the world poverty problems but more likely ticks the politically correct boxes of compliance -
sort of 'buying the problem off' so the situation will just politically go away.
Deserving and genuinely poor countries are a totally different matter, although some of these
get little financial help.
We do need to re-think the Indian aid money, in our present situation we can't afford not to!
It's time to move on, India already has!
numbers are very likely to grow unless we throw them a lifeline of some sort. I would say
that we 'as a country' have a duty to do this.
You can't have austerity measures that adversely affect many of our own people pushing
them nearer to poverty and continue to dish out money to countries that financially can and
must now begin to resolve their own problems. Throwing guilt money at them won't ever
buy a clear concience for mistakes of the past or help people of the past, too late for them!
All countries have a duty to their citizens whether they choose to acknowledge this or not!
Dishing out aid to undeserving 'not poor' countries (eg: India. Argentina) doesn't resolve
the world poverty problems but more likely ticks the politically correct boxes of compliance -
sort of 'buying the problem off' so the situation will just politically go away.
Deserving and genuinely poor countries are a totally different matter, although some of these
get little financial help.
We do need to re-think the Indian aid money, in our present situation we can't afford not to!
It's time to move on, India already has!
Re: Stopping aid to India
Why do we not ask Italy for reparations for 400 years of occupation.
Or Denmark and Norway for their rampaging raping and pillaging ancestors.
Everyone suggesting what we should do with the money. Not raise it in the first place , or start paying of our debts.
Or Denmark and Norway for their rampaging raping and pillaging ancestors.
Everyone suggesting what we should do with the money. Not raise it in the first place , or start paying of our debts.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
In response to Rod (and now Eagle), obviously one can take the idea of what one country or social group may 'owe' another to ridiculous and impracticable lengths. But I think just shrugging one's shoulders and saying that 'politics happen' goes too far in the opposite direction, by implying that politics are morally neutral, like the weather, and that we can never take any moral responsibility for political decisions taken in our name.
So far as India is concerned, I am not saying that our aid budget should not be kept under review as India becomes richer. But (and this is really a separate argument) I do not think that Rod's implied assumption that on balance British rule produced a net benefit to India is self-evidently true. I suspect that many Indians, and some historians, would take a different view.
So far as India is concerned, I am not saying that our aid budget should not be kept under review as India becomes richer. But (and this is really a separate argument) I do not think that Rod's implied assumption that on balance British rule produced a net benefit to India is self-evidently true. I suspect that many Indians, and some historians, would take a different view.
Re: Stopping aid to India
Robin
The Indian Government seem to welcome the move to stop aid.
Are you suggesting we should go against a democratic government.
The Indian Government seem to welcome the move to stop aid.
Are you suggesting we should go against a democratic government.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
Interestingly (perhaps), in a sense I feel I am responsible for the deaths in Iraq. We (even though not I personally) voted in the Blair government and made them our representatives. So, when they went to war against Iraq, they brought shame (in my view) on the whole nation, and some of that rubs off on me. And, I agree, the logic of that is that people like me who disapproved of the war should find some way of making a proportionate compensation to the Iraqi people.rod taylor wrote: Its ridiculous. Robin, you are not responsible for the deaths of children in Iraq, are you? It was done in your name.Pay up if you are.
That's a bit unfair. I'm not suggesting that our responsibilities to those we have exploited could or should be exactly quantified. And, in any case, it's not a question of what a court might award but of what we might think it appropriate to offer.rod taylor wrote: [...] my objection is how you attempt to put a price on that like the worst kind of Injury Lawyers 4 U lawyer.
Re: Stopping aid to India
Rod
To use your theory every German citizen in the war was responsible for the Holocaust . I do not think so.
Also you mention Iraq. How do we know Sadam H would not have killed more people than the war that happened. On past experience very likely , so your Governments intervention , which you feel responsible for , could have SAVED lives.
We have much to spend on at home or even put against our HUGE debt.
To use your theory every German citizen in the war was responsible for the Holocaust . I do not think so.
Also you mention Iraq. How do we know Sadam H would not have killed more people than the war that happened. On past experience very likely , so your Governments intervention , which you feel responsible for , could have SAVED lives.
We have much to spend on at home or even put against our HUGE debt.
-
CaptainCarCrash
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
- Location: Even further than before
Re: Stopping aid to India
No denying SH was a tyrant for gassing his own people and other atrocities.
That means he broke international law, the WOMD thing was because Donald Rumsfeld sold them all of the chemicals to create nasty nerve agents and mustard gas. He was very active within the pharmaceutical industry in the USA.
The gulf war 1 will always be summed up with the words Quote: Bill Hicks RIP "As soon as the cheque clears we're going in." The yanks thought he had WOMD because A) they sold him the blue prints and B) Iran Iraq war was a back door for America, same as Afghanistan, and as history is showing us this wasn't the way to go and has proved that American foreign policy leaves a nasty stink hanging in the air that lasts decades.
For me personally I agree with Robin regards India but only up to a point. We split that country in two causing serious casualties and we have to be seen to be doing the right thing. I think we have done that now and all debts need to be re-evaluated as the world has changed.
Having said this, I am a firm believer that In times of financial hardship charity begins at home.
That means he broke international law, the WOMD thing was because Donald Rumsfeld sold them all of the chemicals to create nasty nerve agents and mustard gas. He was very active within the pharmaceutical industry in the USA.
The gulf war 1 will always be summed up with the words Quote: Bill Hicks RIP "As soon as the cheque clears we're going in." The yanks thought he had WOMD because A) they sold him the blue prints and B) Iran Iraq war was a back door for America, same as Afghanistan, and as history is showing us this wasn't the way to go and has proved that American foreign policy leaves a nasty stink hanging in the air that lasts decades.
For me personally I agree with Robin regards India but only up to a point. We split that country in two causing serious casualties and we have to be seen to be doing the right thing. I think we have done that now and all debts need to be re-evaluated as the world has changed.
Having said this, I am a firm believer that In times of financial hardship charity begins at home.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
So how did the Nazis come to power? Just somehow happened when the honest German burghers weren't looking? Nothing to do with me, guv?Eagle wrote:
To use your theory every German citizen in the war was responsible for the Holocaust . I do not think so.
Re: Stopping aid to India
The Nazis came to power in a democratic election.
Robin says we are to blame because we split India. Are you suggesting that Independence be taken as one country , would there have been less violence.
I again state that the Government of India has stated it does NOT want our Aid.
Robin says we are to blame because we split India. Are you suggesting that Independence be taken as one country , would there have been less violence.
I again state that the Government of India has stated it does NOT want our Aid.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
Precisely. The German voters freely chose them. So how can you say those voters weren't in any way responsible for the horrible (and arguably forseeable) consequences of their choice?Eagle wrote:The Nazis came to power in a democratic election.
No I don't.Eagle wrote:Robin says we are to blame because we split India.
-
14BradfordRoad
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Stopping aid to India
Once the Nazis got to power they themselves (Hitler and co.) decided to embark that level of carnage without any further choice on their actions being given to the voters. I agree that in voting them in the German voters had not made a good choice... Forseeable? How can you be sure?Robin Orton wrote:Precisely. The German voters freely chose them. So how can you say those voters weren't in any way responsible for the horrible (and arguably forseeable) consequences of their choice?Eagle wrote:The Nazis came to power in a democratic election.
In the case of the Blair government the voters did not make the decision to go into Iraq and
had not voted for that action.
Q: Is the midwife who brought the Yorkshire ripper into the world responsible for his murders?
A: I don't think so! Individual responsibility is non-delegable, Sutcliffe choose his actions not
the midwife.
I personally had nothing to do with any wrongs committed in India so do not feel personally
responsible or guilty by circumstance of nationality, that said I am not without sympathy for
those who were wronged in the past. We all have to learn, remember, then move on.
As already stated: The government of India do not want this aid (that we can hardly afford)!
Re: Stopping aid to India
NO.
The Nazi's did NOT come to power in a democratic election. Blimey, do you not know your history? I'm really surprised at you Robin! And Eagle for that matter.
This is what actually happened. Hitler DID NOT, I repeat DID NOT, EVER win a democratic election. I thought everyone knew this!
Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the ‘communist takeover’. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
This law gave Hitler what he wanted — a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To ‘keep the peace’ and maintain law and order, the SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.
The election took place in March — though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag. . . .
After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building – perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler’s Enabling Law.
As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians [in coalition with the Nazis] got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler’s signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted — dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.
On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
The Nazi's did NOT come to power in a democratic election. Blimey, do you not know your history? I'm really surprised at you Robin! And Eagle for that matter.
This is what actually happened. Hitler DID NOT, I repeat DID NOT, EVER win a democratic election. I thought everyone knew this!
Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the ‘communist takeover’. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
This law gave Hitler what he wanted — a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To ‘keep the peace’ and maintain law and order, the SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.
The election took place in March — though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag. . . .
After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building – perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler’s Enabling Law.
As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians [in coalition with the Nazis] got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler’s signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted — dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.
On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Re: Stopping aid to India
I think you are right, Lee. I had forgotten that the Nazis never got a majority of votes in any free election. My statement that the 'German voters freely chose' the Nazis was wrong, or at best seriously misleading, and I withdraw it.
Re: Stopping aid to India
What's that rule that eventually every thread will end up mentioning Hitler?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Stopping aid to India
I agree after the Nazis got to power democracy went out of the window. But in the last election they were the largest party with the most popular votes. So I stick to my comment that they came to power democratically.
Also bradford mentioned that Tony Blair did not have a mandate for military action
Did Chamberlain have a mandate for declaring war in Germany ???
Did Mrs Thatcher have a mandate for the Falklands War???
Can you name one conflict that the Government has gone to the people first ???????
Also bradford mentioned that Tony Blair did not have a mandate for military action
Did Chamberlain have a mandate for declaring war in Germany ???
Did Mrs Thatcher have a mandate for the Falklands War???
Can you name one conflict that the Government has gone to the people first ???????
Re: Stopping aid to India
You need to read your history books Eagle.
First, Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.
I repeat, Hitler was NEVER democratically elected.
Blimey! Go on Brian, admit it. You are wrong. Just this once, dont' worry it happens to us all. It even happened to me once, in 1976 I believe (but I was only 5).
First, Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.
I repeat, Hitler was NEVER democratically elected.
Blimey! Go on Brian, admit it. You are wrong. Just this once, dont' worry it happens to us all. It even happened to me once, in 1976 I believe (but I was only 5).
-
CaptainCarCrash
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
- Location: Even further than before
Re: Stopping aid to India
Brian?
HAHA!
Ahem! Lee
You can win a German election without getting 50% of the vote and Hitler did win with his 44% share of the vote.
As a technicality Hitler wasn’t elected at all. The Republic of Weimar had a system of proportional representation where citizens elected parties, not individuals. In practial terms the NSDAP was in some conservative parts of the electorate probably more a liabilty than an asset to Hitler. The german head of state Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor only after he was reassured that the actual affairs of government would be run by the conservative Deutschnationale (German National) Party.
You like many people seem to forget that old Adolph wasn't going around beating up the Jews on street corners, it was the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.
The German people supported Hitler - elections had no bearing on the crimes of the German people.
HAHA!
Ahem! Lee
You can win a German election without getting 50% of the vote and Hitler did win with his 44% share of the vote.
As a technicality Hitler wasn’t elected at all. The Republic of Weimar had a system of proportional representation where citizens elected parties, not individuals. In practial terms the NSDAP was in some conservative parts of the electorate probably more a liabilty than an asset to Hitler. The german head of state Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor only after he was reassured that the actual affairs of government would be run by the conservative Deutschnationale (German National) Party.
You like many people seem to forget that old Adolph wasn't going around beating up the Jews on street corners, it was the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.
The German people supported Hitler - elections had no bearing on the crimes of the German people.