So this wed President Obama will be meeting with Afghanistan’s' and Pakistans' presidents to make them "full partners" and Aid them with more support ($15 Billion over 10 years) to strengthen their economy. As most know (or maybe not) gov in both countries are corrupt from head to toe. Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan and making progress in Pakistan (60 miles from Capital and holding ground). Am I the only one who thinks that the money should stay where it is when Afghani President Karzai is electing a local warlord to be vice president, "Karzai further angered U.S. officials this week when he named Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a powerful warlord accused of violating human rights, as his vice presidential running mate." Then Pakistani president is talking to U.S officials to support him strengthen his economy, but asks for "more support, I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement." Pakistan then declines that it didn't use $10 billion given to it over past ten years to build his military arsenal to 1 up neighboring India (which both countries always try to do). Is it me or something doesn't add up. U.S has the right idea, but wrong solution. Money given to both countries will more than likely end up where it doesn’t need to and I can see economies of both countries staying exactly where they are or getting worse over time, like it has been over last few years. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/05/pakistan.zadari.nukes/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/analysis.obama.afghanistan.pakistan/index.html I'll add more later, what do you y'all think?
Don't listen to Rick, he's a damn hippie! You tree hugging leaf eating sonovabitch! Get out of here before I get my gun!
Rick said it before I could... I'm not prejudiced, but I say nuke them all and let god (or ala, or whoever else their suicidal tendencies pull them toward) sort them out. I'm sorry, but if you're innocent, why would you ever live there? Imagine how much less terror there would be if the middle east didn't exist... I just opened the flame door... /rant
It's not about hate; it's about damn common sense. When is U.S going to learn? They have been back stabbed over and over by some Middle Eastern countries when U.S jumped in as superhero to save them and make those countries a better place. U.S has been pouring Billions in Pakistan and Afghanistan for years. Every time those countries promise, "we will fix it, if you support us." If i am correct, they have been getting worse and worse since 90's, people are going Anti U.S as days go by, and they have policies to give terrorist group rights (???). Giving them money magically won't fix them; I'd rather have U.S spend that money on needling the terrorist out themselves.
whats billions...pocket change. We have move on to trillions. LOL I thought it was fairly obvious that I don't have a serious bone in my body...well one is. I do seriously want 500 wheel, and the coupe to run some time this year.
Why is obama still alive? When everyone was hating on him getting elected I didn't really care but I'm beginning to dislike him as the days go by.
I don't remember seeing so much trash talking about Bush when for the last 8 yrs he was allied with Pakistan and Afghanistan Govts and poured money into their military and peace keeping tasks. Just saying what I'm observing here. I could use the search button to make sure I'm not mistaken but I doubt there was any threads about "Why is bush spending so much money, blah blah blah blah". Stop bitching now if you didn't bitch during Bush's reign. Besides that, I've always thought Bush spent too much money on the war and helping other govt's security and for the last 8 years and even now, we need to spend more money on US and beefing up our economy first. So in the end I agree the money should stay here, it's just I'm not a hypocrite like some on here who didn't say shit when Bush spent money like it grew on trees but bitch like a little school girl cause Obama is doing something similar. f* that!
Maybe y'all got it wrong, it's not Obama I am bitching about. It's why are these countries still getting money when we all know the roots of the problem is there to begin with? Hence my title. Why did they get aid from Bush without accounting where it went after they got it? Few months back when Pakistan was asked to cough out where the money was, they couldn't come up with exact numbers. Now we are still blindly giving them our tax dollars? Bush did way more damange that anyone has or probably will. We know where the problem is, they are our allies (?) then why can't we go in with their support take care of the problem. Instead of waiting on them to take care of it, which they haven't been able to instead loosing ground to terrorist groups in their on damn country (come on 60 miles from Capital). It's like flushing money down the drain. I just don't understand how they are coming up with these decisions?
I don't think it is so much an issue of spending more money that we don't have (although that IS an issue) so much as giving it to governments who are known to be corrupt (come to think of it...not sure what government is NOT corrupt) and have serious ties to terrorists. I don't think everything Bush did was correct either, but at this point why continue to spend billions on a war when we could just spend the cost of a couple missiles. I have never thought the "war on terror" was aggressive enough.
I think giving them aid is simply setting up another situation like bin laden. We give them stuff to fight the taliban, then here in a couple years they are going to be shooting at us with the stuff we gave them.
Just matter of time before than happens, trust me. It's already happening. ISI (aka pakistani CIA) Funds, trains, plans, and helps in anyway local terrorist groups in any way they can. It's known to U.S, was on CNN, been brought up, and been shut down. We seriously have some clowns up in office if they agree to give $15 Billion in Aid (which is pretty much already given).
Which group in Pakistan would you rather have control of their nuclear arsenal? The Taliban or the current government? If you don't like those options the only other one is to invade and seize control ourselves. How well do you think that will work and how much will that cost?
I love government... The thing that really sickens me is it is about ready to get bigger, even more spending, and even more intrusive...
*kracks knuckles* Unfortunately, the problem inst that simple. But the solutions are very simple, but the solutions won't win you an election. And remember what I always say, politicians first job is to keep his job. The problems with this are actually similar to why we funded Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. We didn't like that Saddam had picked a fight with Iran, but we also didn't like the idea of Iran winning the war even less. So we funded Saddam until a stalemate could be reached again, instead of dealing with Iran ourselves earlier. We don't like the warlords we're funding, but the next option is letting terrorist cells, rogue states, whatever you want to call them, run amok in the region thats rich with a world commodity, or worse in Pakistan's case, a functioning nuke. Mild to moderate corruption is a palatable alternative to fragmented martial instability. Why else would we tolerate Mexico for being guilty of many of the same things? As a short term solution, it makes perfect sense to get temporary stability, and to make sure you fly under the radar for supporting such a thing come next election cycle. A real long term solution is to isolate the undesired elements with military force, you don't even have to kill them, just cut them off. Diplomacy won't work because they are for the most part self sustaining and we have no bargaining leverage to implement. (or you can chose to believe the argument that they view diplomacy culturally as a sign of weakness, take your pick.) Unfortunately, you get immediately demagogued with this line "We aren't the world's police!" Sound familiar? Come election time, you're slated as a war monger if you support direct US military action, or a war profiteer is you support the regional establishment. Another, more liberal, solution is to provide direct civil aid to the regional populace, IE buy them off of any inclination toward violence. I'm not wild about this because it essentially amounts to extortion in the end, but if we make the populace Dependant on us, they will be less likely inclined with violence toward us. However, in addition to my objection, if you're trying to get elected, then people will demand more specifically why you aren't either 'helping other deserving nation A,' or helping the 'poor' in the US. Nobody wants to stomach actually implementing a long-term solution; its just not in their political interests to staying in office. You also have the option of repealing the self-imposed prohibition on punitive international espionage. Good luck trying to get elected to mayor of toilet cleaning with that on your record...
Again a lot of the correct statements, but still no good solution. I really think some black ops operatives should just take out key people...that or unmanned drones with pinpoint accurate minor explosives in the correct places could solve a lot of the problems. I mean if we can read the newspaper over someone's shoulder from space, you would think it would not be tooooooo tough to find the people we need to take out and do so...
Only if you all knew how close Taliban, Afghani, and Pakistani gov. are. Handing them money is pretty much handing Taliban money. I am all in to support those countries if they really show that they have intentions to take care of the problem. U.S needs to go inside Pakistan and finish this problem once and for all with their help (since they say we are such good allies). Borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan have become safe haven for terrorists. Terrorist roam freely inside Pakistan then Pakistan's saying that U.S can not step foot on Pakistanis' soil (which U.S does respect, we just fly over it), and it will take care of the problem. Something def. sounds fishy. Right now the Nukes are in good hands, but for how long? Only Pakistani Gov. is with U.S, not their public. Swat Valley has become a problem area because Pakistan allowed Taliban to take its state up as resident and do whatever they please, openly killing people, changing local gov, and setting their own law. When things went wrong, come running to U.S for help? Sure, please let U.S fly some Drone, and USAF flights over head, nice ground assault along with Pakistani army and problem solved. Will it happen? Most likely no. On the other hand Afghani President Kazari is picking a Warlord to be his vice president. I wonder where that money is gonna go? I can see the point where it might be cheaper for U.S to give money and have the problem fixed. We have been giving money since some of us were even born, has the problem been fixed? It has been getting worst in Middle East. Some serious action needs to be taken with the help of other countries to finish this problem once and for all. It's not President Obama who is at fault; he's pretty much doing what others did and making the same mistake. For once U.S simply needs to tell them, handle the problem yourself since you def have arsenal and "700 thousand" man power to put this to stop in your country. Then come ask us for economic help. What needs to happen as last resort, what Israel did to Iraqi reactors when it became a threat.....15mins changed history.