BF2S Forums US pledges $1 billion to Pakistan

{B-T}<babacanosh> wrote:

I think America is giving Pakistan this money because they fear India.

Just a hunch.

Could be something with terrorism too... Not that I think the reasons given officially are the real ones, a lot of it is probably bribes to keep the generals/politicians on our side.

Pochsy wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The 60's called. They want you to come back.

"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.

Please, enlighten me. All you've done is insult me. Why address my point if your statement has nothing to do with my own? Fuck you in short.

Militaristic society is exactly what it is

The points I have made are all valid. They have been known for a long time. I'd cite you work on the subject, but instead I'll finish with a nice fuck you, you absolute ass.

Well come on Pochsy you really think we want to flood Pakistan with weapons so we could fight them? That is absurd.

Also has the IMF replaced the Fed when it comes to paranoia and conspiracy now?

Macbeth wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Well come on Pochsy you really think we want to flood Pakistan with weapons so we could fight them? That is absurd.

Also has the IMF replaced the Fed when it comes to paranoia and conspiracy now?

I'm saying it wouldn't be unprecedented.

And the IMF is not necessarily paranoia, we can view it's effects on Africa.

Enlighten me to American History when we've flooded a nation with weapons so we could fight them later.

lol IMF's effect on Africa. Africa is a shit hole no matter what happens can't blame the white man IMF for that one.

We flooded Iraq with weapons against Iran.

We didn't exactly intend to fight them later, but it is funny how it typically works out that way.

We've supported many regimes that we later had to fight (or had to fight their successors).

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Enlighten me to American History when we've flooded a nation with weapons so we could fight them later.

lol IMF's effect on Africa. Africa is a shit hole no matter what happens can't blame the white man IMF for that one.

We flooded Iraq with weapons against Iran.

We didn't exactly intend to fight them later, but it is funny how it typically works out that way.

We've supported many regimes that we later had to fight (or had to fight their successors).

I know we gave both Iran and Iraq weapons at some point. But I want an instance where we gave them weapons just so that we could fight them.

We've also supported a bunch that haven't ever turned on us, 50/50 chance and considering how much cash we blow on petty shit here might as well make a smart investment in our safety.

Well, as much as we demonize Iran, we do sell them weapons.  We've even sold them fighter planes.

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We flooded Iraq with weapons against Iran.

We didn't exactly intend to fight them later, but it is funny how it typically works out that way.

We've supported many regimes that we later had to fight (or had to fight their successors).

I know we gave both Iran and Iraq weapons at some point. But I want an instance where we gave them weapons just so that we could fight them.

We've also supported a bunch that haven't ever turned on us, 50/50 chance and considering how much cash we blow on petty shit here might as well make a smart investment in our safety.

Well, as much as we demonize Iran, we do sell them weapons.  We've even sold them fighter planes.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do that under the whole Iran nonproliferation act. I could be wrong though.

Pochsy wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

I'm saying it wouldn't be unprecedented.

And the IMF is not necessarily paranoia, we can view it's effects on Africa.

Enlighten me to American History when we've flooded a nation with weapons so we could fight them later.

lol IMF's effect on Africa. Africa is a shit hole no matter what happens can't blame the white man IMF for that one.

Afghanistan. For the movie version, go ahead and watch Charlie Wilson's war; it's a fairly accurate biography.

Africa is a shit hole no matter what? You total ass. I had respect for you at one point. Africa was first fucked by colonization, again by the Berlin conference, again by Bretton Woods. Yeah I'm going to go right ahead and say you have no idea at all.

My feeling are hurt I've lost your respect. So much for respecting others views.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Africa was better off under European rule then under self rule. I mean self rule in certain places. You know how there is a bunch of parts in civil war and such but that's Europe's fault for withdrawing too right? Your 100% right though I'm going to disregard all those fine diseases and such came out of there and just remember all of those positive technological advancements came out of there or great ideas.

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do that under the whole Iran nonproliferation act. I could be wrong though.

If you're referring to what I think you are, that only applies to nuclear materials and WMDs.  Fighter planes aren't covered by that.

Macbeth wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Africa was better off under European rule then under self rule. I mean self rule in certain places. You know how there is a bunch of parts in civil war and such but that's Europe's fault for withdrawing too right? Your 100% right though I'm going to disregard all those fine diseases and such came out of there and just remember all of those positive technological advancements came out of there or great ideas.

Well, while I agree that some of them would be better off under European or American rule, the current situation would likely be very different if colonization had never occurred.

1. Hmm I'll do a bit of research on my own a bit later on it then. You could be right, I don't know. But If you are I think we are just trying to make some cash on it and not giving it to them so we could later fight them.
2. Maybe, but it's not like they've done anything to impress from there to here. Aside from that you know if the U.S. and Europeans never stepped foot in Africa and had let them do their own thing and they ended up in the position they are in now they would still bitch about "How come the U.S. and Europeans never helped out?!!!!"

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-04-18 15:02:16)

benefit wrote:

a stupid move on every level

pakistan has a government that is happy to take the money to fght terrorists and allows these terrorists to take control of huge areas of the country

any mney going to pakistan is going to the enemies of the west

You haven't read the thread. Particularly the last page.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Unless you mean an ounce of good for Pakistan, in which case you are right.

The 60's called. They want you to come back.

"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.

He's somewhat correct though.

Then again, a war with Pakistan would definitely pull us out of a recession.  There'd be a shitload of death and destruction, but hey...  Pakistan needs some population control anyway.

If by "somewhat correct" you mean "completely wrong", then I guess so.

Our society is hardly militaristic. If it were, we wouldn't have every kid getting a trophy and reducing standards to ensure everyone passes...and many other examples of pussified nannification.

FEOS wrote:

If by "somewhat correct" you mean "completely wrong", then I guess so.

Our society is hardly militaristic. If it were, we wouldn't have every kid getting a trophy and reducing standards to ensure everyone passes...and many other examples of pussified nannification.

Please, in your own words, define "militaristic society." It may save us a lot of time here. This is not a shot, I want to make sure we mean the same thing.

benefit wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

benefit wrote:

a stupid move on every level

pakistan has a government that is happy to take the money to fght terrorists and allows these terrorists to take control of huge areas of the country

any mney going to pakistan is going to the enemies of the west

Some of it will definitely go to extremism.  All of it?  That's kind of a stretch.

not all of it will go to the extremists but some will....a good enough reason not to give it
but the rest will go ti a corrupt government that pays lip service to the west while it allows terrorism and the taliban a free reign

hardly a good investment

To be honest, I'm not a fan of funding Pakistan either.  It feels like a quick fix.

I just wish they'd split into like 5 countries by ethnic regions, so we could just invade the problem areas without declaring war on all of Pakistan.

Their government is mostly impotent outside of the major cities.

Pochsy, I somewhat agree with your conclusions, but you might want to tone down your response some.

I think the main flaw in your argument is that there is a big division in American society about the military.

The government definitely is militaristic, but as a people, about half of us are wary of heavy military involvement.

Our society is too complex to label as militaristic, but our government could somewhat be described that way.  Imperialist would probably be more accurate in describing our government.

Man With No Name wrote:

I played with G.I. Joes when i was a kid.

I played with G.I. Joes.

You played with G.I. Jose.