• US funding Pakistan.
    28 replies, posted
A few years ago, The hunt for Bin Laden was ended after he was found in Pakistan. A country that US claims as their "Ally" and "Friend. Even worse, We gave them 20 BILLION since 2002. 100 Million for their "Frontier Crops", Which is the force that is doing the fighting. and 90$ Million for Antiterrorist funds. The problem? Pakistan has done nothing to support the US. Bin Laden was hiding in a Military town with a base right nearby. Pakistan lets Al-Qaeda members and other Insurgents lay back in their own backyard. What did we expect? Top Al-Qaeda leaders hiding while Pakistan doesn't even give a damn. Until we send in the unmanned drones of course. And then we see what they been doing: Nothing. I believe just recently, Abu Yahya al-Libi was found and killed. Where? Pakistan. Insurgents along the border. Pakisan does nothing. We expected them to let us train their police. Pakisan saids "LOL NOPE. WE TRAIN THEM" We expected them to help us. Pakistan goes, "LOL NOPE" We are expecting them to help us once we get our troops out of Afghanistan. Afghan Troops holding Insurgents out and Pakistan killing them in their own country and along the borders. Which they obviously do not give a shit about. Plus, we already have our own problems besides this war. If we are going to waste money on something, then please let it be something better than a country who is obviously not going to help at the end of the day.
Pakistan silently support Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. No one should support the "country". It's not even identified as a country because it's so unstable (U.N. Wise).
If the US don't give aid to Pakistan it destabilises the region and gives them more reason to invade or attack India, likely through Afghanistan Or get more chummy with Iran, which would probably give them the nous (and nuclear knowledge base) to invade Israel Middle eastern politics isn't that easy guy, especially with nuclear states involved. Insurgency is a thorn in your side, war is a hammer to the face
They are more our enemy than our ally.
The worst part is that they themselves are been attacked by the same group that they're funding.
[QUOTE=DaveP;36239544]If the US don't give aid to Pakistan it destabilises the region and gives them more reason to invade or attack India, likely through Afghanistan Or get more chummy with Iran, which would probably give them the nous (and nuclear knowledge base) to invade Israel Middle eastern politics isn't that easy guy, especially with nuclear states involved. Insurgency is a thorn in your side, war is a hammer to the face[/QUOTE] Or, we could stop sending them aid and leave the region to the hell it wants to unleash and we mind our own business.
I think they need to be training them military and intelligence wise. Keep the funding for now(hard to say, really it is.). And if in 2 years you don't see progress start cutting the funding severely.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36268482]Or, we could stop sending them aid and leave the region to the hell it wants to unleash and we mind our own business.[/QUOTE] that worked very well in the 1940's.
[QUOTE=BloodRayne;36239405]Pakistan silently support Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. No one should support the "country". [B]It's not even identified as a country because it's so unstable (U.N. Wise).[/B][/QUOTE] Wrong. [URL]http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml[/URL] [QUOTE=shian;36268460]The worst part is that they themselves are been attacked by the same group that they're funding.[/QUOTE] It makes you think that the situation isnt as simple as, Oh we found OBL there, lets cut all relations with them. Pakistan is a nuclear state and is in a strategic location. Its a real simple thing. If the US simply ignores Pakistan, it will become a Chinese friendly state (it is already though) to the extent that would annoy the US. Remember, Pakistan's nuclear scientist was also involved in passing design information to states like best Korea and Libya. Not that they cant do the same now, but having them as "US allies" lowers the chances of such incidents happening. Other google'd reasons 1. The US needs Pakistan's ports and roadways to resupply the war efforts in Afghanistan. 2. Pakistan serves as a bulwark against Iranian, Indian and Chinese expansionism into the rest of SW Asia. 3. Pakistan is being used a hiding place for many interests that actively oppose and have actively opposed US interests in the region. Better to have them inside the US tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. Also, keep in mind there was virtually no aid to Pakistan from 1996-2002. The aid only comes in if the US needs the country for its interests (waging war in neighbourhood states). And assuming how much damage this has to the Pakistan itself, the aid is a necessity. Also an interesting article that I came across while googling. [quote] Several policy-makers, politicians, and development professionals in the west believe that the economic survival of Pakistan rests on handouts from the United States. [B]Often American legislators ridicule Pakistan for willingly accepting American dollars in charity, but not delivering on American demands in return.[/B]T he Westerners are not alone in believing that Pakistan’s survival rests on handouts from the US. While speaking on Canadian TV earlier this week, Raheel Raza, a Canadian of Pakistani origin, argued the same. “Ever since the inception of Pakistan the United States has given Pakistan aid without which it cannot survive,” said Ms. Raza. The US economic and military assistance to Pakistan indeed has a long history stretched over decades during which several American governments have poured billions of dollars into Pakistan. [B]The question, however, is to determine first why Americans aided Pakistan and second what was the money intended for. And even more importantly, one should determine if indeed Pakistan’s economic survival rests on American aid.[/B] The British newspaper Guardian maintains an active database documenting six decades of American aid to Pakistan. The data is compiled by Wren Elhai of the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC. The database reveals that since 1948 the US assistance to Pakistan has largely been for civilian purposes. O[B]f the $61.7 billion in total assistance (in constant 2009 dollars) provided to Pakistan between 1948 and 2010, $40.4 billion were provided for economic assistance and $21.3 billion in military assistance. The economic assistance to Pakistan peaked in the early 60s when in excess of $2 billion annually were provided to Pakistan.[/B] [I]Title: US Aid to Pakistan, 1948-2010, (millions, constant 2009 US$)[/I] [IMG]https://dawncompk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/us-aid-1.jpg?w=610&h=345[/IMG]-Source: Guardian. Since 1982, the United States has provided $17 billion in military assistance compared to $13.5 billion in economic assistance. [B]This has largely been a result of covert and overt American military operations in Afghanistan that began in late 70s.[/B] And while there has been a slowdown in economic and military assistance between 1992 and 2001, the US revived its economic and military assistance to Pakistan after 9/11. In fact, since 2002 the US military assistance to Pakistan at $13billion dollars is two-times the economic assistance it provided to Pakistan. [B]The dramatic increase in military assistance to Pakistan in the recent past has contributed to the weakening of democratic and civilian institutions in Pakistan, while it has helped strengthen military’s grip on the socio-political spheres in Pakistan.[/B] One cannot consider military assistance as a favour to Pakistanis. [B]In fact, the US military assistance has been instrumental in reinforcing Pakistani armed forces against the civilian governments. The American military and economic assistance offered to General Zia in early 80s and later to General Musharraf since 2002 are examples of how American funds have strengthened military dictators against civilian setups in Pakistan. Notice in the above graph how the US assistance has largely been absent in the 1990s when parliamentary democracy prevailed in Pakistan. [/B] In 2010, the US economic assistance to Pakistan equalled $1.8 billion. While the amount is indeed large, however on a per capita basis, this translates into a mere $10.3 for the 180-million Pakistanis. Should we believe that Pakistan’s survival has rested on a mere $10.3 per person in civilian assistance from the United States? Some fact-checking is indeed in order. Pakistan is a $175 billion economy. Since 2002, the US has provided on average $825 million annually in economic assistance to Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistani expatriates have remitted on average $1 billion each month in 2011, making remittances an order of magnitude higher than what the US has been providing to Pakistan. I would argue that Pakistan’s economy owes much more to what the expatriates contribute than what comes in charity from the United States. While I remain grateful to American taxpayers who have contributed billions of dollars to Pakistan, for instance, American help with the rescue and relief efforts after the floods in 2011 is indeed commendable, I must also point out that the American wars in the region have played havoc with Pakistan’s economic and social infrastructure. [B] According to the Government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect costs from Nato’s war in Afghanistan, which began on October 07, 2001, has reached over $68 billion. These economic losses are an order of magnitude higher than what the US has offered in economic and military assistance to Pakistan.[/B] [B]And who to account for the 36,000-plus Pakistanis who have perished as a result of the Nato’ war efforts in the region. A fair compensation would require the US to engage the United Nations to verify Pakistan’s claims and then reimburse Pakistan in full for proven claims.[/B] [IMG]https://dawncompk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/us-aid-2.jpg?w=670[/IMG]-Source: Pakistan Economic Survey: 2010-11. [I]* The 2010-11 figures are estimated from 8 months of data.[/I] [B]The nature of development aid business is such that large sums of donated money in fact return to the donor country in the form of contractual payments to consultants and manufacturers. [/B]I recall listening to the former World Bank president James Wolfensohn in 2004 at the 16th Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics in Washington DC where he offered his candid views about how development aid was misspent by donors. In 2003-04 development aid was estimated at $58 billion of which $14 billion were pocketed by the consultants alone. [B]The billions of dollars in US military assistance to Pakistan are no different which in fact help sustain the defense economy in the US. Pakistan ends up buying US-made weapons and fighter jets from the very military assistance it receives from the US, and money it borrows from international lenders.[/B] ... In the proposed budget for 2013, the Obama administration has set aside $2.4 billion in spending related to Pakistan. $800 million out of the $2.4 billion are earmarked for counter intelligence in KP and Fata and for other security operations. $200 million have been earmarked for discretionary spending by the US diplomatic missions in Pakistan. [B]While it appears that huge sums of money will again flow to Pakistan, the reality is that often the planned funds never reach Pakistan. [/B] [B]Consider the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill (The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, 2009) that set aside a total of $7.5 billion in assistance to Pakistan spread over five years. The disbursement under the bill was to begin in 2010. However, the funds have not yet been appropriated. At the same time, the US legislators continue to chastise Pakistan for taking US funds (hitherto not provided) but not delivering in return![/B] Earlier this week, Pakistan’s parliament unanimously passed a resolution condemning the US Congress for conducting hearings about the insurgency in Balochistan. The resolution stated: “the house rigorously condemns and does not accept the hearing by the US congress and considers any such attempt an open intervention in state’s sovereignty and its internal affairs.” Parliamentarians of all political complexions, who were deeply incensed by the US intervention in Pakistan’s domestic affairs, set aside their differences in passing the resolution. I believe that Pakistan’s Parliament should now pass another resolution stating that it will not receive any additional charity from the United States. [B]Knowing that there have always been strings attached to the funds that came from the US, the Parliamentarians should therefore consider US economic and military assistance to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.[/B] [B]Refusing aid and other assistance is a prerequisite for Pakistan’s economic recovery. [/B]The billions of dollars in aid have distorted markets in Pakistan and have subsidised the civil and military elite. Pakistan’s foremost economists, such as S. Akbar Zaidi and others at the Planning Commission in Islamabad, have argued for a secession of aid as a precondition for restructuring Pakistan’s economy to make it self-sufficient over time. Pakistan’s elite and middle class have to rise to the occasion to help resuscitate the faltering economy. Pakistanis have to pay taxes so that their government can refuse aid from others. Unless Pakistanis demonstrate the willingness to carry their own weight by paying taxes, there is no hope of an honourable existence for Pakistan in the community of nations.[/quote]
[QUOTE=shian;36268460]The worst part is that they themselves are been attacked by the same group that they're funding.[/QUOTE] I think there's something about a division in the Taliban with an Afghan Taliban and a Pakistani Taliban. After having them living in their country for a while, Pakistan has strong connections with the Afghan Taliban and funnel money and support into them. Unfortunately a portion of the Taliban have directed their efforts towards attacking Pakistan and want power there. So Pakistan is kind of in the same position the US is in, trying to bribe them enough to not be an enemy but being bitten for providing funds to them anyway. You'd think it'd be easy to solve by abandoning the Afghan Taliban, but they still have the means without Pakistani support, and the close relations exist in their own military so corrupt or defecting military officers is a real threat.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36271238]I think there's something about a division in the Taliban with an Afghan Taliban and a Pakistani Taliban. After having them living in their country for a while, Pakistan has strong connections with the Afghan Taliban and funnel money and support into them. Unfortunately a portion of the Taliban have directed their efforts towards attacking Pakistan and want power there. So Pakistan is kind of in the same position the US is in, trying to bribe them enough to not be an enemy but being bitten for providing funds to them anyway. You'd think it'd be easy to solve by abandoning the Afghan Taliban, but they still have the means without Pakistani support, and the close relations exist in their own military so corrupt or defecting military officers is a real threat.[/QUOTE] Actually the Afgan version had stated numerous times they have no interest whatsoever in waging war outside their boundaries. Its the Pakistani Taliban, which are basically not recognized by the Afgan counterpart and hence a shadowy organization made up of angry villagers (angry at Pakistan and USA) dying from US coordinated airstrikes and a foreign intelligence involvement to punish Pakistan (give them an arm twist if Pakistan becomes "too bold").
[QUOTE=C47;36271727]Actually the Afgan version had stated numerous times they have no interest whatsoever in waging war outside their boundaries. Its the Pakistani Taliban, which are basically not recognized by the Afgan counterpart and hence a shadowy organization made up of angry villagers (angry at Pakistan and USA) dying from US coordinated airstrikes and a foreign intelligence involvement to punish Pakistan (give them an arm twist if Pakistan becomes "too bold").[/QUOTE] It's not just them in Pakistan. With how often the Afghan Taliban moves back and forth across the border, they have a decent presence in Pakistan too. Just because they're not actively attacking Pakistan, doesn't mean they aren't being sheltered there. The US isn't just bombing civilians or an unrelated force because they can. With most of the Afghan Taliban made up of angry villagers, I don't see much of a difference. The Afghan Taliban doesn't want to make an enemy of Pakistan for safety and connections, so obviously they stay out of it. But the Pakistani Taliban is still a splinter rather an independent force, of those who do want power in Pakistan, and they are Taliban more than any other militia. They're assholes, but they're no shadier than the Pakistani officials who help the Taliban in spite of the public image.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36269674]that worked very well in the 1940's.[/QUOTE] Can you explain?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36273690]Can you explain?[/QUOTE] p sure he means WW2 before US got dragged in.
[QUOTE=fskman;36279313]p sure he means WW2 before US got dragged in.[/QUOTE] But we didn't cut off aid to anyone that suddenly spurred WWII. Hell, we were in a horrible depression, we couldn't give out any sort of aid. The comparison fails.
I don't think we should be funding anything over seas in our current state.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36268482]Or, we could stop sending them aid and leave the region to the hell it wants to unleash and we mind our own business.[/QUOTE] Wow, thats incredibly ignorant. A lot of the reasons for why the middle-east and asia are so fucked up is directly and indirectly because of American policies.
[QUOTE=Earthen;36291825]Wow, thats incredibly ignorant. A lot of the reasons for why the middle-east and asia are so fucked up is directly and indirectly because of American policies.[/QUOTE] And how is continuing American policies not going to keep it so fucked up?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36294664]And how is continuing American policies not going to keep it so fucked up?[/QUOTE] Let me put it this way. The aim of it is to try and reduce the problems created as much as possible, but the world doesn't go away when you withdraw into isolationism. Look up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts]their history[/url], repeated bloody wars between two of the most populous countries resulting in a stalemate and two Nuclear powers. Even without US interference they fucked themselves up. You're just talking out your ass if you think any interference is always bad.
[QUOTE=BloodRayne;36239405]Pakistan silently support Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. No one should support the "country". It's not even identified as a country because it's so unstable (U.N. Wise).[/QUOTE] just like we basically manufactured al qaeda during the 1980s, no suspicions there right?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;36298435]just like we basically manufactured al qaeda during the 1980s, no suspicions there right?[/QUOTE] Help guerilla fighters after Soviet Invasion, fund them so they don't become another Soviet puppet, tire the USSR to the point of collapse and eventual breakup, build relations with multiple muslim nations that continued for decades, 20 years later some from the group you helped attack you, every idiot and conspiracy theorist with a half-assed version of history thinks you made Al Qaeda. It's still better to create them and then have them go rogue than to continue to support them after they go rogue.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36298530]Help guerilla fighters after Soviet Invasion, fund them so they don't become another Soviet puppet, tire the USSR to the point of collapse and eventual breakup, build relations with multiple muslim nations that continued for decades, 20 years later some from the group you helped attack you, every idiot and conspiracy theorist with a half-assed version of history thinks you made Al Qaeda. It's still better to create them and then have them go rogue than to continue to support them after they go rogue.[/QUOTE] You left Afghanistan after they fended off the USSR, you built relations by doing what you wanted in the Middle-East instead of giving the Arabs what they wanted which was independence. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36294664]And how is continuing American policies not going to keep it so fucked up?[/QUOTE] I was talking about how you said they wanted their own destruction. Interventionism is important, but only when it is right... like world war 2 or the Suez canal crisis.
[QUOTE=Earthen;36298898]You left Afghanistan after they fended off the USSR, you built relations by doing what you wanted in the Middle-East instead of giving the Arabs what they wanted which was independence.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that was the stupid move, not following up on Afghanistan. Anyone with any sense would have done it, but the US government is full of shit so it didn't happen. And I don't know if you're mixing your facts up with the early 20th century or if you believe in neocolonialism or imperialism bullshit. Not sure if you've looked at a map, but they are independant. Unless you want to take the same position as Osama Bin Laden, that mutually agreed upon cooperation in both trade and security is a violation of their sovereignty. No part of this game is the US doing whatever they want and neither is Muslim governments doing anything they don't want to. [QUOTE=Earthen;36298898]I was talking about how you said they wanted their own destruction. Interventionism is important, but only when it is right*... like world war 2 or the Suez canal crisis.[/QUOTE] *Times when it is right to intervene are subject to the judgement of me, a random civilian, and no-one else. All decisions where intervention is an option should be considered based on what I would think is the right thing to do based only on my sense of hindsight and arbitrary morality. Come on man, you really think anyone would approve of intervening when it's wrong? Or that the judgement over when it is right may be a little more tricky? Global politics, complex shit.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36299032]Yeah, that was the stupid move, not following up on Afghanistan. Anyone with any sense would have done it, but the US government is full of shit so it didn't happen. And I don't know if you're mixing your facts up with the early 20th century or if you believe in neocolonialism or imperialism bullshit. Not sure if you've looked at a map, but they are independant. Unless you want to take the same position as Osama Bin Laden, that mutually agreed upon cooperation in both trade and security is a violation of their sovereignty. No part of this game is the US doing whatever they want and neither is Muslim governments doing anything they don't want to. *Times when it is right to intervene are subject to the judgement of me, a random civilian, and no-one else. All decisions where intervention is an option should be considered based on what I would think is the right thing to do based only on my sense of hindsight and arbitrary morality. Come on man, you really think anyone would approve of intervening when it's wrong? Or that the judgement over when it is right may be a little more tricky? Global politics, complex shit.[/QUOTE] Wow, I didn't know every Arab government was chosen by the people and acted in the best interests of its people. Oh wait that's utter bullshit. Trade? The US forces governments to just sell them oil at low prices to make sure they don't actually start up their own industry or grow economically. The governments of most Arab nations are dictatorial regimes disillusioned by their grandeur who don't actually give a shit about their countries, but just do what the US tells them so they can keep living their cosy lives. Christ the last time an Arab nation did what it really wanted was when Nasser was in control of Egypt. Security? The US props up those Arab regimes and supports the brutal governments as long as they don't fuck with Israel. Why did it take so long for the US to support the rebels in Egypt? Why has the US not done anything about Bahrain? Why is Jordan supported by the US? Why didn't the US do anything about Syria before? Why didn't the US do anything about Israel's invasions of Lebanon? Why do the people of Saudi Arabia hate the ruling elite and why are they still in power? Why didn't the US do anything when Kuwait deported 200,000 Palestinian refugees? You can't be so blind as to actually think Arab nations do whatever they want and when they work with the US its mutually beneficial? Why did the US arm Fatah to fight Hamas when it won heavily monitored democratic elections in Palestine? Or why did Iran turn to Khomeini after 20 brutal years of the Shah that the US put in power? Doesn't the US hate Iran right now, strange they do what they want and then the US hates them... better call scooby and the gang to find out. People don't approve, but they also don't give a shit. Global politics is complex, but it is fucking retarded at the same time. The US and China both stayed out of Rwanda, surely that was the right thing to do? The US doesn't give a shit when Israel rapes the Palestinians and invades Lebanon, the right thing to do? The US intervenes in the Iraq-Kuwait war, but does nothing when the Kurds rise up even though they told the Kurds to rise up, as well as all the other people of Iraq. The US supports both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. The US supports the murderous Algerian FLN regime, which lost in democratic elections to the Islamists. The US supports Mubarak. The US turns a blind eye to Assad. The US turns a blind eye to Jordan's ruling elite. The US turns a blind eye to Iraq and then abuses the people of Iraq with UN approved sanctions. Would you like to hear about South America or Africa? Maybe Asia? Face it, the US' foreign policy is beyond fucked up and has caused death, misery, and poverty.
[QUOTE=Earthen;36300768]Wow, I didn't know every Arab government was chosen by the people and acted in the best interests of its people. Oh wait that's utter bullshit. Trade? The US forces governments to just sell them oil at low prices to make sure they don't actually start up their own industry or grow economically. The governments of most Arab nations are dictatorial regimes disillusioned by their grandeur who don't actually give a shit about their countries, but just do what the US tells them so they can keep living their cosy lives. Christ the last time an Arab nation did what it really wanted was when Nasser was in control of Egypt. Security? The US props up those Arab regimes and supports the brutal governments as long as they don't fuck with Israel. Why did it take so long for the US to support the rebels in Egypt? Why has the US not done anything about Bahrain? Why is Jordan supported by the US? Why didn't the US do anything about Syria before? Why didn't the US do anything about Israel's invasions of Lebanon? Why do the people of Saudi Arabia hate the ruling elite and why are they still in power? Why didn't the US do anything when Kuwait deported 200,000 Palestinian refugees? You can't be so blind as to actually think Arab nations do whatever they want and when they work with the US its mutually beneficial? Why did the US arm Fatah to fight Hamas when it won heavily monitored democratic elections in Palestine? Or why did Iran turn to Khomeini after 20 brutal years of the Shah that the US put in power? Doesn't the US hate Iran right now, strange they do what they want and then the US hates them... better call scooby and the gang to find out. People don't approve, but they also don't give a shit. Global politics is complex, but it is fucking retarded at the same time. The US and China both stayed out of Rwanda, surely that was the right thing to do? The US doesn't give a shit when Israel rapes the Palestinians and invades Lebanon, the right thing to do? The US intervenes in the Iraq-Kuwait war, but does nothing when the Kurds rise up even though they told the Kurds to rise up, as well as all the other people of Iraq. The US supports both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. The US supports the murderous Algerian FLN regime, which lost in democratic elections to the Islamists. The US supports Mubarak. The US turns a blind eye to Assad. The US turns a blind eye to Jordan's ruling elite. The US turns a blind eye to Iraq and then abuses the people of Iraq with UN approved sanctions. Would you like to hear about South America or Africa? Maybe Asia? Face it, the US' foreign policy is beyond fucked up and has caused death, misery, and poverty.[/QUOTE] Ha, is this AmeriKKKa 101? I'm not a dunce, I'm not American, and I can answer your questions. They're not chosen by the people in most, they're mostly Presidential Dictatorships and Absolute Monarchies, you gonna blame the US for THE SYSTEM THESE COUNTRIES SET UP THEMSELVES? The US doesn't prop them up, they often don't interfere at all, whether they be Al-Assad, Mubarak or Gaddafi, Dictators stay in power all by themselves. The US only takes issue when they pose themselves as an enemy to the US, they couldn't give a fuck otherwise. Egypt: They've only really had 4 Presidents in 60 years, not because of the US, but because their system is corrupt. In the uprising, they didn't take sides both to hedge their bets and so it was allowed to be a people's uprising rather than seemingly a US coup. Saudi Arabia: Think it's the US' fault? Should they just institute a coup to bring in Democracy or turn the entire country poor by refusing to trade? It sucks, but they have to be pragmatic rather than Crusading Democracy fanatics, you should know this. Bahrain is the same since they might as well be Saudi Arabia's Hong-Kong. Syria: They're in Russia's pocket. The US wants to tip the balance of the civil war, but Russia and China block them. Not a lot they can do without pissing everyone off even more. Israel: You think it's because the US bribed every dictatorship into not attacking, or because 5 failed wars with nothing gained and a good deal lost is a bad idea? Lebanon was fucked up but politically, not a lot they can do, being so entwined with Israel and all. Iraq: They intervened because they had trade ties with Kuwait, plus it was a coalition with a fuckload of others, it needed to be done. They didn't turn a blind eye earlier on, they tried to play nice, it didn't go well, so they treated them like any hostile nation. Sanctions, when you come up with a better method then you should tell everyone at the UN, they can't think of anything. Kuwait: What, they're expected to handle everything? Why is it the US' business if they expel them, want the US to demand they take them back? Iran: HAHAHAHA, you really think people wanted Khomeini? In the chaos of the revolution they seized power, they're not better than the Bolsheviks. If you think the US planned it out, to institute a Dictatorship and have them overthrown for an Islamist regime 20 years later, you're retarded. Speaking of the Ayatollahs, you heard anything about the major protests against them recently? Wouldn't have anything to do with the Iranian regime being tyrannical, would it? And we get back to the main issue that I mentioned ages ago, SHIT WILL GET FUCKED UP NO MATTER WHAT. If the US intervenes, when shit happens you blame it on them regardless. If they don't intervene, you use your amazing hindsight abilities and blame them for not intervening. If they just carry on as usual, you blame them for things that are completely unrelated to them. Death misery and poverty is everywhere, but because you can blame it on the US, you've got a convenient excuse for why most Arab countries are shitholes that doesn't place any blame on the people in those countries. Isn't that nice, being able to blame your problems on them both when they change things and even when they don't.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36310556]Ha, is this AmeriKKKa 101? I'm not a dunce, I'm not American, and I can answer your questions. They're not chosen by the people in most, they're mostly Presidential Dictatorships and Absolute Monarchies, you gonna blame the US for THE SYSTEM THESE COUNTRIES SET UP THEMSELVES? The US doesn't prop them up, they often don't interfere at all, whether they be Al-Assad, Mubarak or Gaddafi, Dictators stay in power all by themselves. The US only takes issue when they pose themselves as an enemy to the US, they couldn't give a fuck otherwise. Egypt: They've only really had 4 Presidents in 60 years, not because of the US, but because their system is corrupt. In the uprising, they didn't take sides both to hedge their bets and so it was allowed to be a people's uprising rather than seemingly a US coup. Saudi Arabia: Think it's the US' fault? Should they just institute a coup to bring in Democracy or turn the entire country poor by refusing to trade? It sucks, but they have to be pragmatic rather than Crusading Democracy fanatics, you should know this. Bahrain is the same since they might as well be Saudi Arabia's Hong-Kong. Syria: They're in Russia's pocket. The US wants to tip the balance of the civil war, but Russia and China block them. Not a lot they can do without pissing everyone off even more. Israel: You think it's because the US bribed every dictatorship into not attacking, or because 5 failed wars with nothing gained and a good deal lost is a bad idea? Lebanon was fucked up but politically, not a lot they can do, being so entwined with Israel and all. Iraq: They intervened because they had trade ties with Kuwait, plus it was a coalition with a fuckload of others, it needed to be done. They didn't turn a blind eye earlier on, they tried to play nice, it didn't go well, so they treated them like any hostile nation. Sanctions, when you come up with a better method then you should tell everyone at the UN, they can't think of anything. Kuwait: What, they're expected to handle everything? Why is it the US' business if they expel them, want the US to demand they take them back? Iran: HAHAHAHA, you really think people wanted Khomeini? In the chaos of the revolution they seized power, they're not better than the Bolsheviks. If you think the US planned it out, to institute a Dictatorship and have them overthrown for an Islamist regime 20 years later, you're retarded. Speaking of the Ayatollahs, you heard anything about the major protests against them recently? Wouldn't have anything to do with the Iranian regime being tyrannical, would it? And we get back to the main issue that I mentioned ages ago, SHIT WILL GET FUCKED UP NO MATTER WHAT. If the US intervenes, when shit happens you blame it on them regardless. If they don't intervene, you use your amazing hindsight abilities and blame them for not intervening. If they just carry on as usual, you blame them for things that are completely unrelated to them. Death misery and poverty is everywhere, but because you can blame it on the US, you've got a convenient excuse for why most Arab countries are shitholes that doesn't place any blame on the people in those countries. Isn't that nice, being able to blame your problems on them both when they change things and even when they don't.[/QUOTE] The US and Russia were heavily involved in setting up those regimes. The US touts itself as the upholder of democracy and freedom, of course only when its in their best interest. The fuck are you on about? The US does interfere, of course only when it is to their benefit. Why else would they prop up Egyptian, Tunisian, Jordanian, Syrian, Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Israeli and Iranian governments? Egypt: The regime was allowed to butcher people in the streets and the US did nothing about it. So much for standing up for human rights. Mubarak was supported by the US because he was Israel's bitch. The US didn't choose sides because they didn't know who was going to win, they didn't really care about the people. Saudi Arabia: Dude, they've been propped up by the US government for not interfering with Israel's business, why else would the US give a shit about Saudi Arabia other than oil. No they shouldn't institute a coup, but they should be supporting the people's right to be heard. Christ nobody in that country wants the monarchy to remain in power except for Wahhabi fanatics. The US positioned troops in Saudi Arabia to protect its oil fields from Iraq. Trade? The US grabs oil and doesn't give a shit about Saudi Arabia actually building up so industry in the country. I wonder, do you believe that globalisation is a good thing? Syria: Yeah its in Russia's pocket, that doesn't mean you just let them do what they want. If you truly think interventionism is alright then you would support the US helping the people and not giving a shit about what other powers think. Israel: Israel only won those wars because of heavy American backing. Israel was pretty much created by the US, and what did the Israelis do to thank you? They murder and imprison the Palestinians, kill the Lebanese and attack the Egyptians without proper cause. Lebanon was invaded by Israel because Israel wanted the phalangists to win? 'Entwined' is a nice way of putting it, but really it was more Israel killing the Palestinians in Lebanon. Ever heard of the Sabra and Chatila massacres of 1982? Iraq: Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait actually dared raise the prices on oil so it could have some more money. Nothing wrong with that since they don't get shit from oil, but the government is inept. Treated it nice? The US kept using language that stated clearly they were going to bomb the shit out of Iraq. The US didn't care about Kuwait, they only kept troops in Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi Arabia. The US only invaded Iraq because it suited them. Funnily enough just a couple years before that they were giving weapons to Iraq to bomb their own people and the Iranians. The US told the Kurds and the Iraqis to rise up and then left them in the dirt. The UN sanction was called the food-for-oil program that didn't do any good because at the same time the US was bombing the Iraqi oil wells. Kuwait: Yes the US is supposed to be standing up for people's rights, why are they not telling Kuwait to take back the refugees that were kicked out in a fit of xenophobia. So its okay for the US to stand up for 10,000 dead Syrians, but 200,000 Palestinians once again losing their homes and 200,000 dead Algerians because of the US supported FLN is just a side-issue? Hypocrisy much? Iran: The revolution was a popular uprising. The amount of people supporting Khomeini was intense. There was a national referendum that put Khomeini in power. The US put the Shah in power in an operation called the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#U.S._role"]TPAJAX Project[/URL] because the former government decided to nationalise oil production so they could actually use the money to develop the country. I blame shit on the US because most of the time they do what is in their best interest, not in the people's interest on whose behalf they are intervening. Arab countries are fucked up for a variety of reasons, but US meddling is one of the main reasons. I applaud the courage of the protestors in the Arab spring. Are you saying its the people's fault if they don't rise up?
About Iran, I think the US tried hard not to let them have nuclear weapons. Some say the "Islamic revolution" was also aided by the US to over throw the Shah, because the Shah wanted nuclear weapons for Iran. If the regime hadn't been overthrown, Iran wouldve had the nuke a long time ago. Ontopic: Pakistan doesnt need US aid. It did well when it recieved nothing from the US late 90s. The fact of the matter is that this money isnt helping Pakistan's civilians / economy in any way. Its just a means to buy out puppets in key places and then ask these puppets to spend the rest of the money for your own US based defense / military contractors selling hardware, equipment etc. Basically tunnelling tax money into their own pockets (businesses).
[QUOTE=Earthen;36312733]The US and Russia were heavily involved in setting up those regimes. The US touts itself as the upholder of democracy and freedom, of course only when its in their best interest. The fuck are you on about? The US does interfere, of course only when it is to their benefit. Why else would they prop up Egyptian, Tunisian, Jordanian, Syrian, Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, Israeli and Iranian governments?[/quote] That is one of the points I'm making, don't expect them to be idealistic moral paragons and attacking them for not achieving this absurd goal is stupid. And no, they don't prop them up. [quote]Egypt: The regime was allowed to butcher people in the streets and the US did nothing about it. So much for standing up for human rights. Mubarak was supported by the US because he was Israel's bitch. The US didn't choose sides because they didn't know who was going to win, they didn't really care about the people. [/quote] The US liked Mubarak because he played nice with them, nothing more. You're being an idiot with this Israel's bitch stuff, just because people aren't actively waging war on them doesn't mean they ass-kiss. Yes, I said they didn't know who was going to win, and if another tyrannical regime rose out of the turmoil you would be blaming the US for propping them up. Everyone was hoping the new regime would be good, but practically there was nothing they could do that you wouldn't blame them some more for. [quote]Saudi Arabia: Dude, they've been propped up by the US government for not interfering with Israel's business, why else would the US give a shit about Saudi Arabia other than oil. No they shouldn't institute a coup, but they should be supporting the people's right to be heard. Christ nobody in that country wants the monarchy to remain in power except for Wahhabi fanatics. The US positioned troops in Saudi Arabia to protect its oil fields from Iraq. Trade? The US grabs oil and doesn't give a shit about Saudi Arabia actually building up so industry in the country. I wonder, do you believe that globalisation is a good thing?[/quote] Wow, put out a big announcement, "We support the people's right to have free representation in their government", wonder how much that will achieve. Until about the 80s they actively supported the attacks on Israel, now they don't, can't see much of a difference that the US propping them up has done. Oh that's right, because they don't and an Absolute Monarchy can stay in power all by themselves. The ones not building industry are the Saudi government spending 8.7% of their GDP on weapons, why is it the US' job to help them? [quote]Syria: Yeah its in Russia's pocket, that doesn't mean you just let them do what they want. If you truly think interventionism is alright then you would support the US helping the people and not giving a shit about what other powers think. [/quote] You have absolutely no idea how politics work. I support them helping the Syrian opposition, but not only are they comprised of largely Islamist groups fighting one-another as much as Al-Assad, with Iran and Russia backing Al-Assad they could move into a much larger war very quickly. And then you complain about the US meddling like they did in Iraq. [quote]Israel: Israel only won those wars because of heavy American backing. Israel was pretty much created by the US, and what did the Israelis do to thank you? They murder and imprison the Palestinians, kill the Lebanese and attack the Egyptians without proper cause. Lebanon was invaded by Israel because Israel wanted the phalangists to win? 'Entwined' is a nice way of putting it, but really it was more Israel killing the Palestinians in Lebanon. Ever heard of the Sabra and Chatila massacres of 1982?[/quote] No, they didn't make Israel. No, Israel has a lot of their own industry and tactical expertise and beat the Arab forces so absolutely that it can't just have been from a few expensive toys. I know this topic very well and I really don't care. It's not the issue we're arguing anyway. [quote]Iraq: Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait actually dared raise the prices on oil so it could have some more money. Nothing wrong with that since they don't get shit from oil, but the government is inept. Treated it nice? The US kept using language that stated clearly they were going to bomb the shit out of Iraq. The US didn't care about Kuwait, they only kept troops in Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi Arabia. The US only invaded Iraq because it suited them. Funnily enough just a couple years before that they were giving weapons to Iraq to bomb their own people and the Iranians. The US told the Kurds and the Iraqis to rise up and then left them in the dirt. The UN sanction was called the food-for-oil program that didn't do any good because at the same time the US was bombing the Iraqi oil wells. [/quote] Is that why Saddam invaded and annexed them, because of a trade dispute? Oil was an initial issue but annexing them is another entirely. You don't seem to have any idea of timeline, when they were dealing in weapons they tried to be nice, but Saddam was a dick, so they went against him and kicked the shit out of them. They gave him a chance, tried to be nice, but he was an asshole so they brought him down, and you would blame them for propping him up if they hadn't. [quote]Kuwait: Yes the US is supposed to be standing up for people's rights, why are they not telling Kuwait to take back the refugees that were kicked out in a fit of xenophobia. So its okay for the US to stand up for 10,000 dead Syrians, but 200,000 Palestinians once again losing their homes and 200,000 dead Algerians because of the US supported FLN is just a side-issue? Hypocrisy much?[/quote] A lot of good yelling at them to take 200,000 refugees would do. Think about it, what would it achieve, jack shit. For the FLN, you have a choice of two headlines; US ignores genocide in Algeria, or US supports Colonialism by quelling Nationalist uprising. They can't win, you're just blaming for something they have no control over. [quote]Iran: The revolution was a popular uprising. The amount of people supporting Khomeini was intense. There was a national referendum that put Khomeini in power. The US put the Shah in power in an operation called the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#U.S._role"]TPAJAX Project[/URL] because the former government decided to nationalise oil production so they could actually use the money to develop the country. [/quote] Ha, I'm sure Mubarak was elected into power at one point too, doesn't give them any right to hold power decades later in the face of stupidly large opposition. Wow, the US started the coup that brought in the Shah? This is amazing news, next you'll be telling me the US funded Mujahideen, people don't really like Israel or Saudi Arabia has oil, imagine that? (In case you don't understand sarcasm, everyone knows that dumbass, think they don't have regrets or is everything a cold, calculated plot to you?) [quote]I blame shit on the US because most of the time they do what is in their best interest, not in the people's interest on whose behalf they are intervening. Arab countries are fucked up for a variety of reasons, but US meddling is one of the main reasons. I applaud the courage of the protestors in the Arab spring. Are you saying its the people's fault if they don't rise up?[/QUOTE] Might as well be saying you support kittens for the stand that is. I supported the Arab spring because it was a chance for them to finally bring in non-corrupt governments from within, ones that would stick. The US didn't intervene or meddle as much as possible, but you blame them for not intervening. Whether they intervene or not, shit will happen. Whether they do things in their interest or the people's, shit will continue to happen. Even if they withdrew into isolation, shit would happen and you would blame them for not helping. There is no way to win this game, only lose a little less.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36313176]That is one of the points I'm making, don't expect them to be idealistic moral paragons and attacking them for not achieving this absurd goal is stupid. And no, they don't prop them up.[/QUOTE] We expect the US to be a moral paragon because thats what it calls itself. When they start acting in a manner completely opposite to their claim then we attack them. [quote]The US liked Mubarak because he played nice with them, nothing more. You're being an idiot with this Israel's bitch stuff, just because people aren't actively waging war on them doesn't mean they ass-kiss. Yes, I said they didn't know who was going to win, and if another tyrannical regime rose out of the turmoil you would be blaming the US for propping them up. Everyone was hoping the new regime would be good, but practically there was nothing they could do that you wouldn't blame them some more for.[/quote] He was Israel's bitch, he made sure that the Sinai was de-militarised, he played nice with Israel and he made sure there was no dissent back home. The majority of Egyptian presidential candidates are against Egyptian treaties with Israel. Fucking hell Egypt gives natural gas at pretty much zero cost to Israel. I wouldn't blame the US for propping them up unless there was evidence to say so. I blame the US for not supporting the protesters straight away, maybe actually showing the people that the US cares about their plight. [quote]Wow, put out a big announcement, "We support the people's right to have free representation in their government", wonder how much that will achieve. Until about the 80s they actively supported the attacks on Israel, now they don't, can't see much of a difference that the US propping them up has done. Oh that's right, because they don't and an Absolute Monarchy can stay in power all by themselves. The ones not building industry are the Saudi government spending 8.7% of their GDP on weapons, why is it the US' job to help them?[/quote] Words can mean a lot when they come from the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Without the lucrative oil business, Saudi Arabia would collapse... what else do they produce? So its entirely Saudi Arabia's fault that their country is going to shit. The US makes sure that they follow neo-liberal economic policies that ensure the US gets its oil and money. [quote]You have absolutely no idea how politics work. I support them helping the Syrian opposition, but not only are they comprised of largely Islamist groups fighting one-another as much as Al-Assad, with Iran and Russia backing Al-Assad they could move into a much larger war very quickly. And then you complain about the US meddling like they did in Iraq.[/quote] Yes sorry, we should let the poor and mistreated die so that big governments can keep doing what they were doing. What do you mean by islamist groups? As if that has any bearing on how the US should treat the situation. Iran only supports Syria because they both hate Israel. You really think Russia and Iran are going to declare war on the US if it starts giving weapons to the rebels? US meddling in Iraq is very different to showing support to the Syrian people. The Iraqis did not want the US in Iraq, they did not want help from the US because the last time the US offered help it backed out and left the Iraqi people to die. [quote]No, they didn't make Israel. No, Israel has a lot of their own industry and tactical expertise and beat the Arab forces so absolutely that it can't just have been from a few expensive toys. I know this topic very well and I really don't care. It's not the issue we're arguing anyway.[/quote] Yes they did, most of the middle-east was created by the west. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel were created by the west after world war 1. How did they get all of that industry and tactical expertise? They got help from the west. Of course the Arab forces were badly led and armed as well. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict, you're an expert after all. [quote]Is that why Saddam invaded and annexed them, because of a trade dispute? Oil was an initial issue but annexing them is another entirely. You don't seem to have any idea of timeline, when they were dealing in weapons they tried to be nice, but Saddam was a dick, so they went against him and kicked the shit out of them. They gave him a chance, tried to be nice, but he was an asshole so they brought him down, and you would blame them for propping him up if they hadn't.[/quote] It quite literally was a trade dispute, Saddam also wanted more oil and saw it as an opportunity. When the US was giving weapons to Iraq they called Saddam their 'little dictator', all the while Saddam was gassing the Kurds. The US was there to protect Saudi Arabia. There was heavy lobbying to get the US to join that war. False testimonies were given, large sums of money to public relations firms and of course all the lies told to congress and all the supposed crimes were false. It was all done by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. I blame the US because they fucking propped up Saddam before the Gulf War. [quote]A lot of good yelling at them to take 200,000 refugees would do. Think about it, what would it achieve, jack shit. For the FLN, you have a choice of two headlines; US ignores genocide in Algeria, or US supports Colonialism by quelling Nationalist uprising. They can't win, you're just blaming for something they have no control over.[/quote] Oh so you think that unless there are definite results we shouldn't give a shit about the Palestinians? No the headlines would either be US supports brutal FLN or US supports democratically elected Islamists. Do you even know what happened in Algeria? [quote]Ha, I'm sure Mubarak was elected into power at one point too, doesn't give them any right to hold power decades later in the face of stupidly large opposition. Wow, the US started the coup that brought in the Shah? This is amazing news, next you'll be telling me the US funded Mujahideen, people don't really like Israel or Saudi Arabia has oil, imagine that? (In case you don't understand sarcasm, everyone knows that dumbass, think they don't have regrets or is everything a cold, calculated plot to you?)[/quote] Um, Mubarak was never elected, he was vice-president to Sadat and then when Sadat died he became president. I hardly doubt many US presidents have any regrets about what they did. You don't hear Clinton talking about UN sanctions or when they took out Jean-Baptiste Aristide. You know what Madeleine Albright said about 500,000 Iraqi children dying from UN sanctions? She said 'its a terrible price'. When Iran Air 655 was shot down, Reagan said he had apologised enough. You said yourself that politics is a dirty game, so why are you acting as if it isn't? [quote]Might as well be saying you support kittens for the stand that is. I supported the Arab spring because it was a chance for them to finally bring in non-corrupt governments from within, ones that would stick. The US didn't intervene or meddle as much as possible, but you blame them for not intervening. Whether they intervene or not, shit will happen. Whether they do things in their interest or the people's, shit will continue to happen. Even if they withdrew into isolation, shit would happen and you would blame them for not helping. There is no way to win this game, only lose a little less.[/quote] I blame them for not taking the side of the protestors. Jesus christ I'm for intervention when its right, but intervention doesn't always mean 'fuck yeah america lets bomb some kids'. It can also mean just verbally or financially supporting the other side. The US didn't say anything about Bahrain. It took them forever to say anything about Mubarak. Gaddafi was easy because America hated him and he was already killing his own people en masse. Didn't hear any words of support for the protesters in Tunisia. Thats such a stupid answer; 'oh they'll hate us anyway', people hate the US government because it doesn't help the people when they need the help. When the US intervened on behalf of Egypt in the Suez Canal Crisis, that was one of the single greatest American foreign policy moves ever. That time the US stood up for what was right. What happened? I don't want the US to be isolationist, I just want them to intervene on behalf of the ordinary people who want some fucking freedom.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.