Our priorities should be divided. It is not a case of either one or the other. Soldiers are reasonably well looked after. Aid to Pakistan at the moment could save hundreds if not thousands of lives.
In the end, it is a personally choice who you donate money to. I would donate to both. Some would not donate to soldiers who volunteered for their job, and some would not donate to Pakistan because it is a long way away.
I doubt that the average person in Pakistan could afford to send aid here - it's a land of very poor poor people and very rich top n0bs. My money goes to Help for Heroes to help them when they get back here.
// With the population of this overcrowded country of about 150 million what can you expect. Why can't we also send them some condoms as part of the aid. //
The UK is far more over populated than Pakistan which is about 4 times bigger than the UK.
For every square mile in the UK there are 660 people. In Pakistan there are just 500 people per square mile. We are the more over-populated country in comparison.
If you mean people who sign up for the armed forces and then go to Afghanistan, I do not regard them as 'heroes' as a collective group. They are doing the job they signed up for - why else do they fire at human-shaped targets in training, unless they may be required to do it for real?
Heroes are the very very few who save colleagues at personal risk.
No-one is a 'hero' for signing up for a job which involves killing people in an illegal invasion - it's not a war, it is an invasion.
the Taliban don't want aid from the west, as they hope to increase their popularity by providing it themselves. It's good to see so many generous Brits ready to help them achieve their global aims.
If you discount the 1 million (breeding like rabbits) you still have 648 people per square mile which is a lot more cramped than Pakistan's 500 per square mile.