US Congress panel freezes $700m worth of Pakistan aid
49 replies, posted
[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]
That would work if we lived in a perfect world
[QUOTE=Painties Hose;33714485]"B-B-BUT THAT IS SOCIALISM!"[/QUOTE]
I have always been curious about how far we would have gotten with our national freeway system if it happened today.
That shit occurred in the middle of the cold war and yet it was still done.
....hmmm it also served a military purpose though. The freeway overpasses are mandated to be a certain height to allow aircraft to park under them, tanks to pass through them, and trucks carrying ballistic missiles to drive under them.
That is the trick! Convince people that, for national missile defense, we need to have extremely mobile missile launchers ready to roll onto the high speed rail in order to intercept falling ballistic weaponry.
FUCKING. BRILLIANT. Awwww yeah.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714509]-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.[/QUOTE]
The problems you outlined here seem to be mild in comparison to the problems associated with a full scale invasion.
Helping is generally easier than harming, that's just how things are
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714532]The problems you outlined here seem to be mild in comparison to the problems associated with a full scale invasion.
Helping is generally easier than harming, that's just how things are[/QUOTE]
And ignoring them entirely is the cheapest. Whiiiich would be what I was proposing.
[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]
What are you some sort of [I]communist?![/I]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;33714561]What are you some sort of [I]communist?![/I][/QUOTE]
No, we must build them for national defense!
Hah!
I can use fear to control people too!
This is totally what I am missing about politics. All liberal policies need more baseless fear.
Gotta have national health care to stop super monkey jesus AIDS.
Gotta help the homeless because they will dump in the water supply if you don't.
Gotta legalize weed because they are learning how to manufacture super monkey jesus AIDS in prison and are going to distribute it.
The fear doesn't even have to be from a real thing!
You can even turn it around and use it against other policies. Like anti-immigration!
Illegal immigrants have the necessary immunities to protect us from super monkey jesus AIDS.
"Anchor babies" are suddenly "Immunity babies".
[I]Yes![/I]
brb running for office.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714551]And ignoring them entirely is the cheapest. Whiiiich would be what I was proposing.[/QUOTE]
And the problem I see is that you haven't ignored them in the past and kind of fucked them over and pulling everyone out all at once would make it worse.
Conservatives are big on being tough on crime and holding people responsible for their actions so why doesn't congress hold the government accountable for its actions here
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714647]And the problem I see is that you haven't ignored them in the past and kind of fucked them over and pulling everyone out all at once would make it worse.
Conservatives are big on being tough on crime and holding people responsible for their actions so why doesn't congress hold the government accountable for its actions here[/QUOTE]
How did us ignoring them screw either party over?
Accountable for what actions? If we were going to do something, it would be legal action against our own people. At no point in the equation does ruining our country in order to pay back a bunch of people we don't like, come into play.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714668]How did us ignoring them screw either party over? [/QUOTE]
I was talking about your comment about telling the entire middle east to fuck off, not just Pakistan
I'm referring mostly to the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714714]I was talking about your comment about telling the entire middle east to fuck off, not just Pakistan
I'm referring mostly to the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion[/QUOTE]
But ignoring them would have prevented the invasions.
I'm not being critical, I'm just having trouble following your train of thought.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713598]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?[/QUOTE]
First, What. Why do people think that shit funded by taxes is automatically free? You pay tax, I pay tax, everyone pays tax, it's not free; It costs something. In an ideal world, taxation is balanced with government spending. The less they have to spend, the less they tax. If they have a sudden billion dollar project, tax will go up. This usually happens in the form of bonds, which are the easiest way to have a tax increase. Texas has seen several of these in the last decade, and something like that would be no different, just on a country scale.
Second, where do you propose said railways? There is nowhere in the U.S. where you could build a railway free and clear, you'd have to use eminent domain on tens of thousands of people. Eminent domain has already been grossly abused in the past, and still is today. There were a couple of articles in this section awhile back of some city condemning several city blocks of residential buildings to make room for a huge shopping mall "for the good of the people", which is complete bullshit.
Eminent domain requires the government compensate you "fair market value" for taking your property, which also has been grossly abused. They can fuck with the land value freely, and have been caught red handed forcing down the land value around an area they want to steal away for some project in the past.
Another thing that linking large areas with easy transportation does in the states is cause population explosions. You build a highway, businesses move close to it. People move close to the businesses, and people move close to those people. pretty soon, you have a 10,000 population city. Some people like myself like being out in a semi-rural area where we don't have to deal with crap of the city. Having some rail line would destroy that, you'd have people who want the same setting, and move out to rural areas, and all of the sudden it turns into a house choked sea suburb with people stacked on people.
[QUOTE=bohb;33714786]First, What. Why do people think that shit funded by taxes is automatically free? You pay tax, I pay tax, everyone pays tax, it's not free; It costs something. In an ideal world, taxation is balanced with government spending. The less they have to spend, the less they tax. If they have a sudden billion dollar project, tax will go up. This usually happens in the form of bonds, which are the easiest way to have a tax increase. Texas has seen several of these in the last decade, and something like that would be no different, just on a country scale.
Second, where do you propose said railways? There is nowhere in the U.S. where you could build a railway free and clear, you'd have to use eminent domain on tens of thousands of people. Eminent domain has already been grossly abused in the past, and still is today. There were a couple of articles in this section awhile back of some city condemning several city blocks of residential buildings to make room for a huge shopping mall "for the good of the people", which is complete bullshit.
Eminent domain requires the government compensate you "fair market value" for taking your property, which also has been grossly abused. They can fuck with the land value freely, and have been caught red handed forcing down the land value around an area they want to steal away for some project in the past.
Another thing that linking large areas with easy transportation does in the states is cause population explosions. You build a highway, businesses move close to it. People move close to the businesses, and people move close to those people. pretty soon, you have a 10,000 population city. Some people like myself like being out in a semi-rural area where we don't have to deal with crap of the city. Having some rail line would destroy that, you'd have people who want the same setting, and move out to rural areas, and all of the sudden it turns into a house choked sea suburb with people stacked on people.[/QUOTE]
My wording was carefully chosen. You pay nothing to use the line, but taxes, and thereby you, would always pay for its existence. The idea being that increased commerce and decreased personal transportation costs translates into a significantly more healthy overall economy and thereby benefits you personally. Not to mention the idea was that there is plenty of money already being spent where it shouldn't, that could easily afford to build rail infrastructure here.
Yes, the government would need to use eminent domain. Which would be more problematic if this wasn't exactly what it was for. It isn't corruption to use eminent domain to build national infrastructure. That is the point of the power. Something that drastically lowers emissions while increasing mobility for all tiers of society and promoting tourism? If there was a better example of the RIGHT way to use eminent domain, I am having trouble seeing it.
Rail line or no, there is always going to be population creep. People are going to expand into areas where they haven't before. The possibility of your area becoming a population center seems like a ridiculous problem when faced with the benefits.
Good on the US for taking a stand but I feel bad for the people who need it and who now have to suffer because of their government's stubbornness; who will be eating full meals in well heated homes with or without aid.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33714854]My wording was carefully chosen. You pay nothing to use the line, but taxes, and thereby you, would always pay for its existence. The idea being that increased commerce and decreased personal transportation costs translates into a significantly more healthy overall economy and thereby benefits you personally. Not to mention the idea was that there is plenty of money already being spent where it shouldn't, that could easily afford to build rail infrastructure here.
Yes, the government would need to use eminent domain. Which would be more problematic if this wasn't exactly what it was for. It isn't corruption to use eminent domain to build national infrastructure. That is the point of the power. Something that drastically lowers emissions while increasing mobility for all tiers of society and promoting tourism? If there was a better example of the RIGHT way to use eminent domain, I am having trouble seeing it.
Rail line or no, there is always going to be population creep. People are going to expand into areas where they haven't before. The possibility of your area becoming a population center seems like a ridiculous problem when faced with the benefits.[/QUOTE]
It's a great idea on paper, but so was N.A.F.T.A., and Communism. Part of the reason that the U.S. job economy is in such dire straits is because of N.A.F.T.A.
Instead of a lengthy explanation why N.A.F.T.A destroyed jobs, here's a video about it:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnVL0d9fwkY&feature=relmfu[/url]
I've been alive long enough that I've seen the effects of it first hand, it's sad.
You could compare it to a "easy method of transportation" When you link great distances, you must think hard about the consequences. You see "an easier method of people getting to work" and I see "competition for the same service in a much larger area". Competition is a good thing, but too much competition is a really bad thing, and hurts the economy.
I think that Imran Khan has a nice point regarding much of the aid money, and the state of Pakistan.
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/frostovertheworld/2011/12/20111210942346106.html[/url]
About damn time they stopped sending money to them.
[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]
[video=youtube;jF_yLodI1CQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ&feature=related[/video]
[QUOTE=barttool;33718180][video=youtube;jF_yLodI1CQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ&feature=related[/video][/QUOTE]
Pppft, monorails are for pussies. Maglev all the way. Speeds over 300 mph and extremely little wear and tear because there are virtually no moving parts.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33714410]Yeah well, tough shit - you already broke it. You break it, you buy it.[/QUOTE]
You might want to recall all the people we had go into the Middle East as allies. The United Kingdom, Australia, Georgia, the Ukraine, Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy committed a tremendous amount of troops and manpower. And others did their part as well: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Denmark, Iceland, the Czech Republic, Norway, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the Philippines, Mongolia, Tonga, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua.
And you Canadians even pitched in; I remember reading in the news about General Natynczyk deploying to Baghdad.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33713927]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. [/QUOTE]
Uh, no, Bremer's three points, including deba'athificaiton and dismantling the entire Iraqi military caused the insurgency, not these reparations you claimed the US made.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.