I know good point also good point made my cameronpoemtb0minime wrote:
Forgive me for sounding selfish, but why the fuck are they giving money to some shitty country when our own country is in a shitty situation...
Perspective. A shitty day here beats a good year in many other countries.mtb0minime wrote:
Forgive me for sounding selfish, but why the fuck are they giving money to some shitty country when our own country is in a shitty situation...
I'd rather give it to ATG. At least he could hook me up with some sweet gutters or something. That's a lot more than Pakistan will give you.Kmarion wrote:
I'd rather give it to AIG ... HA!
The way things go in Pakistan, I wouldn't be surprised if the aid funnelled its way into insurgent hands and munitions somewhere along the way.FEOS wrote:
Unless they put it into ammo to take out the fundamentalist knuckleheads, it won't do a drop of good.
Are you guys kidding? That will do a world of good. For the US. More weapons in foreign hands means more enemies to fight means militaristic society rolls on.M.O.A.B wrote:
The way things go in Pakistan, I wouldn't be surprised if the aid funnelled its way into insurgent hands and munitions somewhere along the way.FEOS wrote:
Unless they put it into ammo to take out the fundamentalist knuckleheads, it won't do a drop of good.
The 60's called. They want you to come back.Pochsy wrote:
Are you guys kidding? That will do a world of good. For the US. More weapons in foreign hands means more enemies to fight means militaristic society rolls on.M.O.A.B wrote:
The way things go in Pakistan, I wouldn't be surprised if the aid funnelled its way into insurgent hands and munitions somewhere along the way.FEOS wrote:
Unless they put it into ammo to take out the fundamentalist knuckleheads, it won't do a drop of good.
Unless you mean an ounce of good for Pakistan, in which case you are right.
foo you crazy.ghettoperson wrote:
I'd rather give it to ATG. At least he could hook me up with some sweet gutters or something. That's a lot more than Pakistan will give you.Kmarion wrote:
I'd rather give it to AIG ... HA!
He's somewhat correct though.FEOS wrote:
The 60's called. They want you to come back.Pochsy wrote:
Are you guys kidding? That will do a world of good. For the US. More weapons in foreign hands means more enemies to fight means militaristic society rolls on.M.O.A.B wrote:
The way things go in Pakistan, I wouldn't be surprised if the aid funnelled its way into insurgent hands and munitions somewhere along the way.
Unless you mean an ounce of good for Pakistan, in which case you are right.
"militaristic society" ffs.
The only thing that will do any good for Pakistan is getting rid of the radical fundamentalists. Until they get that under control, they're teetering on the edge of anarchy.
Well, to be fair, Bush began the trend.
http://www.usaid.gov/pk/mission/background/index.htmTurquoise wrote:
Well, to be fair, Bush began the trend.
When Musharraf was leading Pakistan, we threw multiple billions at Pakistan per month.
When it comes to the level of funding though... Bush brought it to another level.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.usaid.gov/pk/mission/background/index.htmTurquoise wrote:
Well, to be fair, Bush began the trend.
When Musharraf was leading Pakistan, we threw multiple billions at Pakistan per month.
Clinton was not President when Americans had a post 9/11 mentality. Right or wrong the sentiment was noticeably different. Translate those 1950's-81 dollars to today's equivalent and I think you'll see a pretty high level of support.Turquoise wrote:
When it comes to the level of funding though... Bush brought it to another level.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.usaid.gov/pk/mission/background/index.htmTurquoise wrote:
Well, to be fair, Bush began the trend.
When Musharraf was leading Pakistan, we threw multiple billions at Pakistan per month.
It is true that we had been working with the ISI for quite some time (primarily under Clinton), which had also involved funding.
True. But even when adjusted for inflation, the annual amount we've spent on Pakistan during most of the Bush years dwarfs all other periods.Kmarion wrote:
Clinton was not President when Americans had a post 9/11 mentality. Right or wrong the sentiment was noticeably different. Translate those 1950's-81 dollars to today's equivalent and I think you'll see a pretty high level of support.Turquoise wrote:
When it comes to the level of funding though... Bush brought it to another level.
It is true that we had been working with the ISI for quite some time (primarily under Clinton), which had also involved funding.
Maybe. Musharraf was certainly more cooperative than their current leader.Harmor wrote:
My bad...to be fair and balanced:
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/6916 … edrain.png
But at least with Bush I felt we were getting our money's worth.
