Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Loyal ally Pakistan allows the US to reopen supply line to troops in Afghanistan. For $365 million US. Annually   (csmonitor.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, United States, Government of Pakistan, military officials, flat fee, Security Alliance, NATO  
•       •       •

2453 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2012 at 9:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-16 10:22:38 AM  

Yes this is dog: redly1: Yes this is dog: England charged us $4 billion a week in the 1940's, this is fairly cheap.

wait....what?

I just made that up.


Yeah, it was $6 billion plus we had to screw ALL of their women.

Airborne would have jumped without 'chutes to get away from those snaggle-toothed beasts.
 
2012-05-16 10:23:40 AM  

croesius: Can we pay them out of the billions we are paying isreal so they can feel big and impotent?


I hope that was intentional.
 
2012-05-16 10:28:01 AM  

McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.


I prefer Pitt the Elder
 
2012-05-16 10:30:33 AM  
I'm currently reading Amed Rashids new book. I think he might be the only Pakistani that I like.
 
2012-05-16 10:30:40 AM  

croesius: Can we pay them out of the billions we are paying isreal so they can feel big and impotent?


This is what happens when you huff paint kids
 
2012-05-16 10:31:03 AM  

machoprogrammer: McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.

I prefer Pitt the Elder


LORD PALMERSTON!
 
2012-05-16 10:32:29 AM  

machoprogrammer: McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.

I prefer Pitt the Elder


application.denofgeek.com

Nobody can turn a phrase like Pitt the Younger

"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I shall be brief, as I have rather unfortunately become Prime Minister right in the middle of my exams."
 
2012-05-16 10:34:19 AM  

spentmiles: $365 Million / 24 Soldiers = $15 Million

Would you allow yourself to be killed if your surviving family got $15 million?


No, but I would allow my family to be killed if I got $15 million.....
 
2012-05-16 10:43:02 AM  

trozman: Joe Blowme: Savages will never be more than that as long as they embrace islam which just keeps them retarded. That and inbreeding.

/time to get the boots off the ground and just use air power to keep them at bay

2/10 way too obvious.

Also ignored. Damn it feels good to be a gangster.


Ignoring the truth will not make it go away

/islam is a death cult
 
2012-05-16 10:47:50 AM  
 
2012-05-16 10:48:55 AM  
So, for less than we're giving Israel in exchange for nothing.
 
2012-05-16 10:49:14 AM  
cdn-images.hollywood.com

"Being married means I can break wind and eat ice cream in bed."

Take THAT, Pitt the younger!

/Watch your phraseology. Great Honk...
 
2012-05-16 10:51:28 AM  

Therion: A good deal, considering the $10 billion dollars a month we're spending on the war.

SURGE! = pay off our enemies. It worked in Iraq, it (sorta) works in Afghanistan.


The problem there is the folks you buy off tend to be the next generation's problem. Kinda like the debt...
 
2012-05-16 10:58:42 AM  

Why Would I Read the Article: spentmiles: $365 Million / 24 Soldiers = $15 Million

Would you allow yourself to be killed if your surviving family got $15 million?

No, but I would allow my family to be killed if I got $15 million.....


Oh now you're just haggling.
 
2012-05-16 11:08:59 AM  

Joe Blowme: /islam is a death cult


Not really. But it has been embraced by some guys who have a pretty strong existing death tradition. I'm not sure that suicide bombing is more of an Islam thing or a Pashtun thing.
 
2012-05-16 11:16:40 AM  

Bloody William: machoprogrammer: McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.

I prefer Pitt the Elder

LORD PALMERSTON!


PITT THE ELDER!
 
2012-05-16 11:18:32 AM  

oldfarthenry: vernonFL: The reason they cut off our supply lines in the first place is because we killed 24 of their soldiers.

Kinda `business as usual' with the friendly-fire US military, isn't it?
(Eight Canuck soldiers are no longer around to concur.)


I'm surprised you're the only person to bring this up.

The possibilities are quite simply a) Friendly-fire (mistaken identity) b)Pakistani rogue military outpost sympathetic towards Taliban shot at the US c) US intentionally and maliciously destroys Pakistani military outpost.


Okay, or d) Pakistani friendly fire against US results in US destroying Pakistani outpost.

Anything else is could possibly be? Aliens?

Which seems most likely? Despite this being Fark, the answer is NOT always C.
 
2012-05-16 11:18:42 AM  

machoprogrammer: Bloody William: machoprogrammer: McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.

I prefer Pitt the Elder

LORD PALMERSTON!

PITT THE ELDER!


DISRAELI, BIATCHES!
 
rpl
2012-05-16 11:42:07 AM  

honk: $365 million a year?

Doesn't anybody know how to bargain these things down? I got the car I'm driving for $75.

In a major climb-down, Pakistan dropped its demand that Washington apologize for the deaths due to the November raids.

Okay, here's the deal. Knock off $200 million a year and we'll apologize to anybody for anything, okay?

Sounds like we don't need diplomats in the state department. We need used-car salesmen.


Well, the US and NATO are currently moving shiat to Afghanistan through Central Asia (the Northern Distribution Network). Besides being longer and more complicated, this costs the US around $500 million annually because surprise surprise, "allies" usually means "business partners", not "bffs", and few would let you run a shiatton of equipment across their country for free. Even if they aren't Pakistan.

So, here's your $200 mill, I guess. You can...buy one more semibroken superfighter or something.
 
2012-05-16 11:51:22 AM  

NeauxFear: machoprogrammer: Bloody William: machoprogrammer: McManus_brothers: As Lord Palmerston said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a permanent interest of ours.

I prefer Pitt the Elder

LORD PALMERSTON!

PITT THE ELDER!

DISRAELI, BIATCHES!


www.planet-familyguy.com

You don't even know who I am!
 
2012-05-16 12:03:24 PM  
Big deal, it's all funny munny anyway. Just borrow more from the Chinks.

/ no way we're paying back our debt.
 
2012-05-16 12:07:03 PM  
We need to get our troops and diplomats out of that entire region. There is nothing there for us and if the Taliban takes over again, who cares.
 
2012-05-16 12:17:17 PM  
We already pay them billions for... something. What's a few more mil?
 
2012-05-16 12:19:18 PM  
With friends like this who needs enemies?
 
2012-05-16 12:29:49 PM  
Pakistan is effectively fighting a civil war. Having us move supplies through them makes it tougher for the guys who actually like us. I have no problem paying them.

Part of the problem here is that while the part of Pakistan that likes us hates Al Qaeda, they have been allies of the Taliban for a long time. Pakistanis on both sides would be much happier if we teamed up with the Taliban to kill off Al Qaeda.

/The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not allies.
//The Taliban was the landlord, and Al Qaeda was the tenant.
/Blaming the landlord for the actions of the tenant is bad business
 
2012-05-16 12:33:11 PM  
A landowner has to negotiate access through land that doesn't have easements, so what's the big deal here?

BOTTOM LINE: NO OTHER COUNTRY OWES THE U.S. ANYTHING BY DEFAULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A TRADE CONCERN. That's the nature of trading - it's a give and take, not just the take part.This isn't manifest destiny, and we're not exactly kind to even our own allies. It's like our nation as a whole ignores the disconnect between our prior standing in the world and the events of the last 10 years that caused us to lose that standing. I do love this nation, but we have to be realistic about our place and our problematic diplomacy.
 
2012-05-16 12:45:40 PM  

Somaticasual: A landowner has to negotiate access through land that doesn't have easements, so what's the big deal here?

BOTTOM LINE: NO OTHER COUNTRY OWES THE U.S. ANYTHING BY DEFAULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A TRADE CONCERN. That's the nature of trading - it's a give and take, not just the take part.This isn't manifest destiny, and we're not exactly kind to even our own allies. It's like our nation as a whole ignores the disconnect between our prior standing in the world and the events of the last 10 years that caused us to lose that standing. I do love this nation, but we have to be realistic about our place and our problematic diplomacy.


Driving down a road is NOT a form of trade. Try again.

Okay, you call it an easement. Does it seem odd to you that nobody else has to pay for this privilege? Does it seem strange to you that 99% of the countries in the world do not charge such an "easement"?

I realize that Pakistan is in no way an ally of the USA, in fact, I would label them an enemy, But they claim to be an ally and yet they charge us to drive across their roads.
 
2012-05-16 12:58:20 PM  

chuckufarlie: Driving down a road is NOT a form of trade. Try again.


Interstate 69 begs to differ, as does the entire purpose of the NAFTA agreements..
 
2012-05-16 01:03:13 PM  
Annually trifecta in play?
 
2012-05-16 01:09:53 PM  

Somaticasual: chuckufarlie: Driving down a road is NOT a form of trade. Try again.

Interstate 69 begs to differ, as does the entire purpose of the NAFTA agreements..


simply driving down a road is not trade. Keep trying.
 
2012-05-16 01:14:05 PM  

debug: 1 million a day? Sounds like a great deal...


It is.

But you know people will biatch about that paltry extra 1 million that will have to be paid every four years.
 
2012-05-16 02:45:21 PM  
I'd be pissed if I was Pakistan too. We blew up one of their outposts and killed their people.
 
2012-05-16 03:56:16 PM  

hdhale: Hector Remarkable: The price of war went up a million a day. The cost? Our soul.

Our soul is fine. Your spine however could use some solid substance.

As others as pointed out, we've paid more to better allies.


Tsk, tsk, tsk.

i229.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-16 04:46:29 PM  

The Bestest: Pakistan is not our ally. They're part of the reason Afghanistan is the quagmire it is. Think about what they'll use this money for. The issue is that they have us by the balls, and nothing short of saying "fark it" and pulling out of Afghanistan completely overnight or actively going to war against Pakistan as well will address that.


How does $365 million compare to how much it would cost us to go to war against Pakistan, and win?


hdhale: As others as pointed out, we've paid more to better allies.


That's the point. It's not the about money. It's that Pakistan is a nest of treacherous snakes. I'd resent giving them 365 dull pennies.

I know it's not fair or rational, but my gut tells me "bomb the ever-loving fark out of them until they beg us to let them reopen the supply route."

/but why DULL pennies, cousin?
 
2012-05-16 04:50:58 PM  
You know what else would clear a supply line and costs less than 365 million?

www.centennialofflight.gov
 
2012-05-16 05:07:17 PM  

RichieLaw: vernonFL: The reason they cut off our supply lines in the first place is because we killed 24 of their soldiers.

This. I came to TFA outraged and then while reading that thought, well, that is eminently reasonable.


Disclaimer: I've been in the US Military, even deployed to the desert, but I was a support troop - I've never shot a weapon outside of practice, and normally don't leave deployed bases at all. That being said, in the fog of war mistakes happen. I don't even particularly believe the accounts of survivors, think that video evidence can be misleading/vague, etc... I don't even believe the press releases too much. On average I believe that we do the best we can, simply because, as seen here, hitting the wrong target doesn't help us one bit.

Consider the body armor that the Army issues to it's soldiers. It only provides protection from the front/back, and the plates only cover a portion of the chest. Obviously we could make a vest or even a suit that provides more overall protection, but what testing has shown is that that the increase in weight eventually outweighs the increase in protection due to the loss of mobility.

Think of Rules of Engagement like body armor - too loose and you get many cases of bad targeting. Very bad. But make it too restrictive and you see increased targeting as soldiers aren't allowed to engage valid targets as the opportunity presents. It's incredibly difficult to eliminate ALL mistargeting,
 
2012-05-16 10:58:22 PM  
Rewrite.
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report