• US Congress panel freezes $700m worth of Pakistan aid
    49 replies, posted
[release] [B]A US Congressional panel has frozen $700m (£450m) in aid to Pakistan until it gives assurances it is tackling the spread of homemade bombs in the region.[/B] The move - the second such freeze this year - reflects US frustration over what it sees as Islamabad's reluctance to act against militant groups. But it has has been criticised by senior Pakistani politicians. The killing of Osama Bin Laden by US forces and ongoing US drone strikes in Pakistan have strained bilateral ties. Washington is also known to be unhappy about what it sees as lacklustre Pakistani efforts to counter the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network, which it believes operates out of Pakistan and fights US troops in Afghanistan. Correspondents say that Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid and the cutback announced on Tuesday is only a small proportion of the billions of dollars it receives from Washington every year in civil and military assistance. But the freeze in aid - part of a defence bill that is expected to be passed by Congress later this week - could presage even greater cuts, correspondents say. [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16157631#story_continues_2"]Continue reading the main story[/URL][h=2]US-Pakistan downturn[/h][B]30 Sept 2010: [/B]Nato helicopters kill two Pakistani soldiers, prompting nearly two-week border closure in protest [B]22 April 2011: [/B]Supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan halted for three days in protest over drone attacks [B]2 May:[/B] US announces Bin Laden's death and says Pakistan not warned of raid [B]2 June: [/B]Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen admits "significant" cut in US troops in Pakistan [B]10 July: [/B]US suspends $800m of military aid [B]22 Sept: [/B]Outgoing US Adm Mullen accuses Pakistan of supporting Haqqani militant group in Afghanistan; denied by Pakistan [B]26 Nov: [/B]Nato air strikes on checkpoints on the Afghan border kill 24 Pakistani troops [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15909051"]New crisis for US-Pakistani ties[/URL] Washington has provided about $20bn (£12.8bn) in security and economic aid to Pakistan since 2001, much of it in the form of reimbursements for assistance in fighting militants. In July the US said it was withholding some $800m (£500m) in military aid to Pakistan - about a third of the annual US security assistance to Pakistan. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told ABC television at that time that Pakistan had "taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid". Justifying the latest aid freeze, some in Congress say that Islamabad has not only failed to act against militant groups but that in some cases it has actively provided them with help, a charge Pakistani officials deny. Members of Congress are particularly aggrieved over suspicions that homemade bombs - or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) - are being made by militants based in Pakistan for use against US and Nato troops in Afghanistan. IEDs are among the most effective weapons of the militants, and are responsible for most coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Many are reportedly made using ammonium nitrate, a common fertiliser which Washington believes is being smuggled across the border from Pakistan. The US wants "assurances that Pakistan is countering improvised explosive devices in their country that are targeting our coalition forces", Representative Howard McKeon, a House Republican, said. Pakistan, however, argues that it is doing its utmost to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban - and hundreds of its soldiers have been killed since it joined the US-led war in Afghanistan in 2001. "It [the latest freeze] is most unfortunate and untimely," Pakistani senate committee on foreign affairs chairman Salim Saifullah Khan told the AFP news agency. "I think we will survive without aid, but it is most unfortunate to see these things after 31 years of sacrifices by Pakistan." Last month Pakistan accused Nato of killing 24 Pakistani soldiers in an air strike near the Afghan border - and has stopped fuel being supplied from Pakistan to Nato forces in Afghanistan as a sign of its anger.[/release] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16157631[/URL] I don't think they care anymore
We should use that money for something else BESIDES funding a fucking middle-east country that obviously does not give a shit.
About fucking time.
Did they ever release the results of the checkpoint bombing investigation? I'd like to know why that even happened in the first place. They have a right to be pissed off about that, if another country 'accidentaly' bombed 24 of our guys, we'd be up in arms over the incident. I do totally support these funding cuts, there's no point in giving them the money if they are just going to sit on it.
Why are we giving all this money away when our own fucking country is in a massive shithole right now
How about we use that money to build more railroads here. High speed rail would fundamentally change how we live in the United States. High speed rail funded entirely by taxes would be amazing. Can you imagine a long range public transportation system that you literally pay nothing to use? As a bonus don't charge tourists either. If they are willing to vacation here, then, in the interest of foreign relations, we should help cart them around. If it was widespread enough, then an increase in the cost of oil that we desperately fight to keep so low would be heavily offset by the decrease in oil consumption. People could live over a hundred miles from work and get there in under an hour without having to do anything other than sit and surf the web and drink coffee for the duration. Tell the entire middle east to fuck off. Let them burn in their shit hole corner of the world. Use the money that we were spending to murder them to pay off our debt and build some fucking railroads. Yeah the middle east is a hotbed for terrorism, but lets stop funding them and provoking them and see how that works out. Rampant poverty, terrible education system, large unemployment rate, and a quickly dividing population on the home front means no more aid for other countries. Nobody has anything worth the amount of money we are paying them compared to what it could do at home. Fucking. Ridiculous.
i like trains choo choo
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713598]How about we use that money to build more railroads here. High speed rail would fundamentally change how we live in the United States. High speed rail funded entirely by taxes would be amazing. Can you imagine a long range public transportation system that you literally pay nothing to use? As a bonus don't charge tourists either. If they are willing to vacation here, then, in the interest of foreign relations, we should help cart them around. If it was widespread enough, then an increase in the cost of oil that we desperately fight to keep so low would be heavily offset by the decrease in oil consumption. People could live over a hundred miles from work and get there in under an hour without having to do anything other than sit and surf the web and drink coffee for the duration. Tell the entire middle east to fuck off. Let them burn in their shit hole corner of the world. Use the money that we were spending to murder them to pay off our debt and build some fucking railroads. Yeah the middle east is a hotbed for terrorism, but lets stop funding them and provoking them and see how that works out. Rampant poverty, terrible education system, large unemployment rate, and a quickly dividing population on the home front means no more aid for other countries. Nobody has anything worth the amount of money we are paying them compared to what it could do at home. Fucking. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I couldn't have said it any better myself. Agreed 100%. To much money, lives and other resources have gone in to this war against terror and it has only resulted in Americans suffering and losing their own rights and privileges. I'm all for helping and developing other countries, but we need to help our own people before others. I would love to take reliable public transport but it is nearly non-existent in my area. So I'm forced to drive my truck which gets 10mpg or less depending on how I'm driving. (Yes i bought the truck, it was really the only viable option at the time for what i needed and the cost.) I would love to get on a train and go to a major city and just looking around, make a day trip out of it.
I've never thought of how good a high-speed train system would be. That's a really good idea
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713598] Tell the entire middle east to fuck off. Let them burn in their shit hole corner of the world.[/QUOTE] That's an ok attitude to take only after you repay every cent of damage your country has caused over there
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33713689]That's an ok attitude to take only after you repay every cent of damage your country has caused over there[/QUOTE] This. You want America to stop funding Middle Eastern countries? Stop going into the Middle East to fuck shit up.
I never understood why people want to stop Aiding other countries. As long as the money goes to making Pakistan a less shitty place, it is money well spent. The reason why countries fail is because they do not get support. Afghanistan got taken over by the Taliban in 1996 because we cut off aid from them. Freezing aid to Pakistan will hurt innocent Pakistani's and will hurt our national security. Plus, 700 million dollars is chump change to us. Essentially Foreign Aid is essential. Do not get all Ron Paul on the world, Facepunch. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] Basically, we give countries money because we know it will help us in the end. We do not need them to be grateful or nice to us in return, as long as the money is being used in a way that will make Pakistan less tribal and less prone to hosting terrorist cells. If the money does not do that, the freeze those funds sure why not.
[QUOTE=person11;33713773]I never understood why people want to stop Aiding other countries. As long as the money goes to making Pakistan a less shitty place, it is money well spent. The reason why countries fail is because they do not get support. Afghanistan got taken over by the Taliban in 1996 because we cut off aid from them. Freezing aid to Pakistan will hurt innocent Pakistani's and will hurt our national security. Plus, 700 million dollars is chump change to us. Essentially Foreign Aid is essential. Do not get all Ron Paul on the world, Facepunch. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] Basically, we give countries money because we know it will help us in the end. We do not need them to be grateful or nice to us in return, as long as the money is being used in a way that will make Pakistan less tribal and less prone to hosting terrorist cells. If the money does not do that, the freeze those funds sure why not.[/QUOTE] So you rather have our country deal with another country's problems while we live a in shit economy? Great plan there.
[QUOTE=person11;33713773]I never understood why people want to stop Aiding other countries. As long as the money goes to making Pakistan a less shitty place, it is money well spent. The reason why countries fail is because they do not get support. Afghanistan got taken over by the Taliban in 1996 because we cut off aid from them. Freezing aid to Pakistan will hurt innocent Pakistani's and will hurt our national security. Plus, 700 million dollars is chump change to us. Essentially Foreign Aid is essential. Do not get all Ron Paul on the world, Facepunch. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] Basically, we give countries money because we know it will help us in the end. We do not need them to be grateful or nice to us in return, as long as the money is being used in a way that will make Pakistan less tribal and less prone to hosting terrorist cells. If the money does not do that, the freeze those funds sure why not.[/QUOTE] Because throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it, it just gives it fuel to burn.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713598]How about we use that money to build more railroads here. High speed rail would fundamentally change how we live in the United States. High speed rail funded entirely by taxes would be amazing. Can you imagine a long range public transportation system that you literally pay nothing to use? As a bonus don't charge tourists either. If they are willing to vacation here, then, in the interest of foreign relations, we should help cart them around. If it was widespread enough, then an increase in the cost of oil that we desperately fight to keep so low would be heavily offset by the decrease in oil consumption. People could live over a hundred miles from work and get there in under an hour without having to do anything other than sit and surf the web and drink coffee for the duration. Tell the entire middle east to fuck off. Let them burn in their shit hole corner of the world. Use the money that we were spending to murder them to pay off our debt and build some fucking railroads. Yeah the middle east is a hotbed for terrorism, but lets stop funding them and provoking them and see how that works out. Rampant poverty, terrible education system, large unemployment rate, and a quickly dividing population on the home front means no more aid for other countries. Nobody has anything worth the amount of money we are paying them compared to what it could do at home. Fucking. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE] The problem : County, state, and city legislatures. Counties and cities not wanting a railway project within their borders. Then they have to eminent domain and all this bullshit and it takes way too long. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] Besides airlines would probably lose a lot of business ( since flying is such a fucking hassle, one time they touched my balls) and the government doesn't want that to happen.
[QUOTE=timothy80;33713821]So you rather have our country deal with another country's problems while we live a in shit economy? Great plan there.[/QUOTE] We are solving their problems for our own security. We can spend money both on them and on ourselves. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;33713824]Because throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it, it just gives it fuel to burn.[/QUOTE] It depends on how effectively you use the money. If the money actually improves the foundation of the country's economy to remove the structural barriers to civilized life that leads men to become terrorists, we should continue spending it. If it ends up in the corrupt hands of the ruling Military Government, we should stop spending the money.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33713689]That's an ok attitude to take only after you repay every cent of damage your country has caused over there[/QUOTE] Tried that with Iraq, that proved to be a terrible plan. It wound up costing insane amounts of money, spawned vast amounts of insurgents and terrorists, and cost many people their lives. Now we are pulling out from there. I would like us to abandon the region entirely. No funding or soldiers present. Remaining in the region, even with the best of intentions, would only spawn more hatred and cost more lives. The best solution is to agree to sit in our corner while they sit in theirs.
[QUOTE=person11;33713911]We can spend money both on them and on ourselves.[/QUOTE]Except America is trillions in debt and in no position to be giving out money to countries half-way across the globe
[QUOTE=Glitch360;33713936]Except America is trillions in debt and in no position to be giving out money to countries half-way across the globe[/QUOTE] We have plenty of other places to cut spending in our budget. And as long as Pakistan cannot manage its own country, it poses a threat to use. Therefore we are have good reasons to be spending money over there.
[QUOTE=seano12;33713880]The problem : County, state, and city legislatures. Counties and cities not wanting a railway project within their borders. Then they have to eminent domain and all this bullshit and it takes way too long. [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] Besides airlines would probably lose a lot of business ( since flying is such a fucking hassle, one time they touched my balls) and the government doesn't want that to happen.[/QUOTE] Airlines are already going under. Eminent domain is still a power of the Federal government and, in all matters of interstate trade, the Federal government can override the local governments. The Feds can also withhold the massive amount of federal funds that come back down the pipe to them. The government can do it, and it can do it well, but it can't go half measure. It needs to show up and be a giant dick about it. That is why we are a Republic. The entire point is that the government occasionally needs to act in the best interest of everyone, even if a portion of the population is very much displeased by it. [editline]14th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;33713954]We have plenty of other places to cut spending in our budget. And as long as Pakistan cannot manage its own country, it poses a threat to use. Therefore we are have good reasons to be spending money over there.[/QUOTE] How? Nukes? Yeah, that will end well for Pakistan. It isn't like we are the single most dangerous nuclear power on the planet or anything. "Radioactive wasteland" would be putting it [I]nicely.[/I] Other than that, the entire middle east combined still lacks the power to do anything to the United States in terms of military capabilities. Outdated crappy hardware aside, they just don't have the boats or the necessary aircraft to cause trouble. Plus the instant they DO attempt to hurt us, hell shows up at their doorstep. The last country that attacked us on our own soil got nuked.[I] Twice.[/I] So lets just leave them and let them continue being backstabbing douchebags to other people.
I meant the fact they cannot keep the Taliban from operating within their own borders. I was not implying that their military could pose any threat.
[QUOTE=person11;33714174]I meant the fact they cannot keep the Taliban from operating within their own borders. I was not implying that their military could pose any threat.[/QUOTE] Terrorism poses little threat.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33713689]That's an ok attitude to take only after you repay every cent of damage your country has caused over there[/QUOTE] morally i agree, but i just don't see the practicality the way our country functions and has proved in the past it's inability to properly "help" another nation, i feel like we'd be doing them more of a favor by just pretending that part of the earth doesn't even exist rather than funding them and their enemies and attempting to hijack their sovereignty.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714310]Terrorism poses little threat.[/QUOTE] True, they have been mostly weakened by what we have done already. It just does not bode well with me to not completely do away with them.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713927] The best solution is to agree to sit in our corner while they sit in theirs.[/QUOTE] Yeah well, tough shit - you already broke it. You break it, you buy it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714410]Yeah well, tough shit - you already broke it. You break it, you buy it.[/QUOTE] What would you propose we do?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714410]Yeah well, tough shit - you already broke it. You break it, you buy it.[/QUOTE] I'm for fixing only what we broke, anything they broke or was already broken can stay that way. probably means a half-paved road, or a partial building. They can do the rest.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714431]What would you propose we do?[/QUOTE] Well the obvious first step would be to stop bombing and shooting at them and their buildings. Then work with the governments of these nations (if they're lacking a permanent government, work with whoever is forming the interim government) to assess the amount of damage. Send in engineers to help with repair if possible, and if that's too dangerous fund their engineers to do it. Then send reparations to the families of civilians killed. Lastly, make sure the funds go where they're supposed to go and (it should go without saying) stop funding/working with warlords in the region.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713598]How about we use that money to build more railroads here. High speed rail would fundamentally change how we live in the United States. High speed rail funded entirely by taxes would be amazing. Can you imagine a long range public transportation system that you literally pay nothing to use? As a bonus don't charge tourists either. If they are willing to vacation here, then, in the interest of foreign relations, we should help cart them around. If it was widespread enough, then an increase in the cost of oil that we desperately fight to keep so low would be heavily offset by the decrease in oil consumption. People could live over a hundred miles from work and get there in under an hour without having to do anything other than sit and surf the web and drink coffee for the duration. Tell the entire middle east to fuck off. Let them burn in their shit hole corner of the world. Use the money that we were spending to murder them to pay off our debt and build some fucking railroads. Yeah the middle east is a hotbed for terrorism, but lets stop funding them and provoking them and see how that works out. Rampant poverty, terrible education system, large unemployment rate, and a quickly dividing population on the home front means no more aid for other countries. Nobody has anything worth the amount of money we are paying them compared to what it could do at home. Fucking. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE] "B-B-BUT THAT IS SOCIALISM!"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714458]Well the obvious first step would be to stop bombing and shooting at them and their buildings. Then work with the governments of these nations (if they're lacking a permanent government, work with whoever is forming the interim government) to assess the amount of damage. Send in engineers to help with repair if possible, and if that's too dangerous fund their engineers to do it. Then send reparations to the families of civilians killed. Lastly, make sure the funds go where they're supposed to go and (it should go without saying) stop funding/working with warlords in the region.[/QUOTE] -I am totally for stopping military action in the region. -We don't like the governments in the region, and they don't like us. This makes it extremely difficult to work with them in any capacity. In many cases working with their governments is arguably morally the wrong thing to do, as they are totalitarian and abusive to their own people. Working with them, or funding them, provides them with legitimacy and/or power that we shouldn't be providing. -A huge portion of the contractors we use to build things are already local, but that seems to have little to no bearing on them getting shot at. They get shot for working with us, not because of who they are. There are also legal issues with protecting private contractors with the military, so private military contractors are employed instead using funds provided. I can't imagine you view PMC's in a positive light. -Reparations? That is completely unfeasible in virtually every way. Economically we can't begin to afford it. Politically we gain nothing from it. Socially we have a mutual hatred anyways. Not to mention the investigation necessary to separate insurgent/terrorist from innocent civilian on a case by case basis would be insane beyond all measure. -Can't make sure funds go where they are supposed to go unless we have a military presence. We couldn't make sure FOOD got to where it was supposed to go in Somalia. You can be damn sure we can't ensure money gets to where it needs to be. -Ceasing to fund anyone in the region is certainly a good idea. Keep in mind that a government is inherently self-interested. Good can be done in the world, but you have to always recognize the limitations of national governments and come up with ways to circumvent them or work within their confines.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.