If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   U.S. to give Pakistan $100,000,000.00 from "existing government resources" -- this way, the Obama admin doesn't have to ask Congress for special permission and everybody wins. Everybody, except you and me, of course   (reuters.com) divider line 33
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

285 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2009 at 5:00 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-05-19 01:56:19 PM
Am I the only one who sees this as more money to bribe Pakistani officials to continue towing the US line?
 
2009-05-19 02:11:08 PM
So we're giving them money now that they're actually doing things in Swat and actually are dealing with Al Qaeda instead of making us do it?

This is a bad thing, how? If $100 million saves us billions by reducing the chance of us having to freaking deploy in Pakistan to take out terrorists, sounds like a deal.
 
2009-05-19 02:14:05 PM
Bloody William: So we're giving them money now that they're actually doing things in Swat and actually are dealing with Al Qaeda instead of making us do it?

This is a bad thing, how? If $100 million saves us billions by reducing the chance of us having to freaking deploy in Pakistan to take out terrorists, sounds like a deal.


The only flaw in your logic is that Pakistan already accepted $80 billion from us and did little more than placate us for awhile. $100 million is pocket change compared to that.
 
2009-05-19 02:26:58 PM
make me some tea: Bloody William: So we're giving them money now that they're actually doing things in Swat and actually are dealing with Al Qaeda instead of making us do it?

This is a bad thing, how? If $100 million saves us billions by reducing the chance of us having to freaking deploy in Pakistan to take out terrorists, sounds like a deal.

The only flaw in your logic is that Pakistan already accepted $80 billion from us and did little more than placate us for awhile. $100 million is pocket change compared to that.


Musharaff is gone, and the Taliban are breathing down Islamabad's neck. They might be a bit more inclined to do...well, something.
 
2009-05-19 02:31:52 PM
Diogenes: Musharaff is gone, and the Taliban are breathing down Islamabad's neck. They might be a bit more inclined to do...well, something.

Musharraf was having to pander to the ISI/Pakistani military, which has many members who are Taliban sympathizers, just to keep his position. All those characters are still around.
 
2009-05-19 02:47:56 PM
I am so sick of this idiotic, racist whining. I think its worth paying people to keep nukes out of the hands of al-Qaeda. If you don't believe that, then you are clearly too stupid to vote because both the Democrats and the Republicans have overruled you.
 
2009-05-19 04:24:53 PM
angryjd: I am so sick of this idiotic, racist whining. I think its worth paying people to keep nukes out of the hands of al-Qaeda. If you don't believe that, then you are clearly too stupid to vote because both the Democrats and the Republicans have overruled you.

Who's being racist? Or whining for that matter?

These are facts.

The U.S., under Bush, has paid Pakistan $80 Billion (with a B) to secure their nukes. To this day, we have received no proof that they have done so, we don't know how many they have, where they are, or how exactly they are "secured", beyond verbal assurances. Musharraf told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear all those years, and Bush thought he was his bestest buddy in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, while he was accepting our cash, Musharraf was also pandering to the Taliban militants, allowing them to fester in N. Waziristan, launch attacks on our guys in Afghanistan, and likely supported them in blowing up the Indian embassy in AG, killing about 50 Indian diplomats and staff.

I can't blame Musharraf for pandering to the militants, considering that many members of the ISI and military are sympathetic toward them, and there are many, many moles in the government. He was just doing whatever he had to do to hang onto power.

However, the U.S. has been duped, as we can see now.
 
2009-05-19 05:06:21 PM
The real shocker is that "existing government resources"...exist...
 
2009-05-19 05:06:36 PM
That'll cover some moving expenses when the country goes to shiat.
 
2009-05-19 05:07:21 PM
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The United States plans to give Pakistan about $100 million in humanitarian aid to help people who have fled fighting between government forces and Taliban militants in the Swat Valley, two sources familiar with the plan said on Tuesday.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with nukes. But keep on trollin', if that suits you.
 
2009-05-19 05:08:00 PM
angryjd: I am so sick of this idiotic, racist whining. I think its worth paying people to keep nukes out of the hands of al-Qaeda. If you don't believe that, then you are clearly too stupid to vote because both the Democrats and the Republicans have overruled you.

Not that I disagree with your main point, but both the Democrats and Republicans agreeing is hardly a glowing endorsement. More like, "Great, how is this one going to fark us?"
 
2009-05-19 05:11:28 PM
make me some tea: Am I the only one who sees this as more money to bribe Pakistani officials to continue towing the US line?

you don't need to "see" it that way. that's exactly what it IS.

/happens allllll the time.
 
2009-05-19 05:12:27 PM
make me some tea: towing

Urge to kill rising.
 
2009-05-19 05:15:13 PM
wait what? onlt evil Bush can do that? Not Chairman Obama.......

oh, so he is the Chairman?????? (MAO)
 
2009-05-19 05:15:32 PM
Well they did spend all the previous gifts of cash so well in the past that I see nothing wrong with this new dump truck filled with America's future dept...
 
2009-05-19 05:20:24 PM
Cant really blame them, if I found a way to exploit someone richer than me I'd try to suck off that teat as long as it lasted to
 
2009-05-19 05:23:42 PM
The largest single expenditure is $26 million for the immediate purchase of wheat, other food and related items produced in Pakistan (new window)

Wheat? WHEAT?! You're right subby, no one wins when we give people under severe (temporary) stress wheat. Let's bomb them. That way, at least we win.

"Morrell said the Pentagon is sending C-17 cargo planes loaded with food, water and tents. The aid is not sent with the intent to improve public opinion of the United States, Morrell said."

No, subby wants bombs. Replace those tents now.
 
2009-05-19 05:30:05 PM
make me some tea: Am I the only one who sees this as more money to bribe Pakistani officials to continue towing the US line?

Disaster aid, refugee aid and food aid, maybe they figured out people like you more when you drop aid instead of bombs.
 
2009-05-19 05:33:31 PM
Tackboard: Well they did spend all the previous gifts of cash so well in the past that I see nothing wrong with this new dump truck filled with America's future dept...

So you're automatically assuming that Bush incompetence in administering the funds is merely replaced with Obama incompetence? Maybe, but that has yet to be proved.

So you would - what - say fark it, not our problem and let Pakistan deal with the Taliban being within a couple of hours of Islamabad? Or, fark it, let them Pakis starve?

What's your big plan for the Taliban being within a few miles of the capital and its nukes?

Enlighten us.
 
2009-05-19 05:33:33 PM
... isn't this exactly how we became Al Qaeda's favorite target in the first place?

[Kepel, Gilles, Jihad, Belknap, (2002), p.143]
 
2009-05-19 05:37:08 PM
I might win. Not sure yet. How about you just lose?
 
2009-05-19 05:39:27 PM
Oh great, another Pakistan thread.

These are always inspiring. And by inspiring I mean full of people who seem to think that they possess esoteric knowledge of Pakistan, which is usually outdated or based on hearsay that's been around since 2005.
 
2009-05-19 05:43:46 PM
Huh, I seem to recall another president using political sleight-of-hand to pretend he wasn't asking for more money... something about an occupation, funded outside the regular budget... that everyone had their panties in a twist about and were using to defend everything Obama did financially...
 
2009-05-19 05:50:42 PM
So we are paying them $100 million so THEY fight AL Qaeda and the Taliban instead of us doing it?


That's what I call a freakin deal!
 
2009-05-19 05:52:40 PM
Jim_Callahan: Huh, I seem to recall another president using political sleight-of-hand to pretend he wasn't asking for more money... something about an occupation, funded outside the regular budget... that everyone had their panties in a twist about and were using to defend everything Obama did financially...

Except for THIS IS ALREADY ON THE BUDGET. It was just funded for other purposes.

So you have a point except it is completely wrong.

This is not "Emergency funding"
 
2009-05-19 06:04:39 PM
Corvus: So we are paying them $100 million so THEY fight AL Qaeda and the Taliban instead of us doing it?


That's what I call a freakin deal!


No, we're providing $100mil in humanitarian aid for people moving away from the fighting.

Corvus: This is not "Emergency funding"
In your world where we are paying for them to fight, it could be viewed as that.

In the real world where it is temporary humanitarian aid, it is.
 
2009-05-19 06:31:25 PM
Wasn't this the same party that was saying that 700x as much was a savings like a week or so ago?

kan i haz mr stupid???
 
2009-05-19 06:39:15 PM
Indis: No, we're providing $100mil in humanitarian aid for people moving away from the fighting.

Yes, but that is so they can bomb the hell out of the Taliban.
 
2009-05-19 06:41:12 PM
Indis: In your world where we are paying for them to fight, it could be viewed as that.

In the real world where it is temporary humanitarian aid, it is.


No in the world of reality. He did not have an "emergency spending" measure through congress. That is the reality.

To be "emergency spending" it needs to be passed as "emergency spending". See in reality it needs to happen to consider it has happened. Not in "my world".
 
2009-05-19 06:56:39 PM
make me some tea: angryjd: I am so sick of this idiotic, racist whining. I think its worth paying people to keep nukes out of the hands of al-Qaeda. If you don't believe that, then you are clearly too stupid to vote because both the Democrats and the Republicans have overruled you.

Who's being racist? Or whining for that matter?



These are facts.

The U.S., under Bush, has paid Pakistan $80 Billion (with a B) to secure their nukes. To this day, we have received no proof that they have done so, we don't know how many they have, where they are, or how exactly they are "secured", beyond verbal assurances. Musharraf told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear all those years, and Bush thought he was his bestest buddy in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, while he was accepting our cash, Musharraf was also pandering to the Taliban militants, allowing them to fester in N. Waziristan, launch attacks on our guys in Afghanistan, and likely supported them in blowing up the Indian embassy in AG, killing about 50 Indian diplomats and staff.

I can't blame Musharraf for pandering to the militants, considering that many members of the ISI and military are sympathetic toward them, and there are many, many moles in the government. He was just doing whatever he had to do to hang onto power.

However, the U.S. has been duped, as we can see now.


$80 Billions????

Are you farking high or some thing?

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122439.htm
 
2009-05-19 08:48:31 PM
nycdude: $80 Billions????

Are you farking high or some thing?


Ah, I'm sorry I got my numbers mixed up. It's $80 Million a month, totaling $5.4 Billion so far since 9/11 (according to this article, 70% of which hasn't gone to anything purposeful to us):

Link (new window)

Still, that's a lot of damn money for nothing.
 
2009-05-20 01:03:01 AM
make me some tea: angryjd: I am so sick of this idiotic, racist whining. I think its worth paying people to keep nukes out of the hands of al-Qaeda. If you don't believe that, then you are clearly too stupid to vote because both the Democrats and the Republicans have overruled you.

Who's being racist? Or whining for that matter?

These are facts.

The U.S., under Bush, has paid Pakistan $80 Billion (with a B) to secure their nukes. To this day, we have received no proof that they have done so, we don't know how many they have, where they are, or how exactly they are "secured", beyond verbal assurances. Musharraf told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear all those years, and Bush thought he was his bestest buddy in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, while he was accepting our cash, Musharraf was also pandering to the Taliban militants, allowing them to fester in N. Waziristan, launch attacks on our guys in Afghanistan, and likely supported them in blowing up the Indian embassy in AG, killing about 50 Indian diplomats and staff.

I can't blame Musharraf for pandering to the militants, considering that many members of the ISI and military are sympathetic toward them, and there are many, many moles in the government. He was just doing whatever he had to do to hang onto power.

However, the U.S. has been duped, as we can see now.




I still hold out the hope that after 9/11 Bush secretly forced Musharraf to dismantle his nuclear arsenal and means of production, and that all the current news about them producing more is just more cover (i.e., they want India to think they're still nuclear) that we agreed to.

Yes, it would be the one thing Bush did right his whole 8 years so I doubt it happened, but still, I can dream.
 
2009-05-21 01:15:26 AM
Weren't we just talking about how 100 million in cuts was absolutely nothing?

Obama Asks For $100 Million in Budget Cuts: Is it Just a Drop in the Bucket?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-asks-for.html

So... is $100,000,000.00 a LOT, or a LITTLE?

/bonus points for the .00, I really needed to know I wouldn't have to bring any change.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report