US Ponders Wasting Money On Pakistani Refugees

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 12, 2009

U.S. ponders aid for displaced Pakistanis
The Obama administration is considering additional aid to Pakistan to help hundreds of thousands of its citizens displaced by heavy fighting in the Swat Valley, the top U.S. envoy for the region said Tuesday.

Richard C. Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration has not decided on the amount and type of assistance.

Still, he promised the committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, to share his recommendations for a budget supplemental.

"We are looking at how to act on that," Mr. Holbrooke said when Mr. Kerry called on the administration to help Pakistanis in need of humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Kerry suggested aid during a time of crisis could improve attitudes toward the United States.

"I don't know if it'll be a supplemental or something, but I think the administration ought to come up here and seize this opportunity," Mr. Kerry said.

So, Mr. Kerry, where's the government going to get the money, a tax on ketchup-queen widow billionaire gigolos?

American · May 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, Mr. Kerry, where's the government going to get the money, a tax on ketchup-queen widow billionaire gigolos?

It's your patriotic duty to help those people.

Dav · May 12, 2009

Where we initially went wrong in Iraq (and for that matter, Vietnam) is that we failed to carve a positive image of ourselves in the eyes of the people there.

Maybe we shouldn't let that happen here?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 12, 2009

Dav said:
Where we initially went wrong in Iraq (and for that matter, Vietnam) is that we failed to carve a positive image of ourselves in the eyes of the people there.

Maybe we shouldn't let that happen here?

Absolutely we shouldn't let that happen in Pakistan.

So we need to stay as far away as possible and leave them no one to blame but their own government and their own Taliban and their own Al Qeada and their own Allah for their troubles.

You, however, as a private citizen, should donate as much or as little of your own money to whatever anti-American cause you find most suitable for your purposes today.

OR! You could tell us where the US is going to get the money from to pay for this pointless act of charity.

Dav · May 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absolutely we shouldn't let that happen in Pakistan.

So we need to stay as far away as possible and leave them no one to blame but their own government and their own Taliban and their own Al Qeada and their own Allah for their troubles.

You, however, as a private citizen, should donate as much or as little of your own money to whatever anti-American cause you find most suitable for your purposes today.

OR! You could tell us where the US is going to get the money from to pay for this pointless act of charity.

The problem is, their own problems are our own problems. If the Taliban takes over Pakistan, we have a HUGE problem.

As for where the US could get the money, obviously the best way would be to stop the pork and use that money, but since that won't happen I guess the taxpayers are going to have to pay for their own protection. And as I said, this is about their protection.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 12, 2009

Dav said:
The problem is, their own problems are our own problems. If the Taliban takes over Pakistan, we have a HUGE problem.

No, we don't.

INDIA has a problem.

If the Taliban wins in Pakistan, we can start bombing Pakistanis.

I don't see any problems there, do you?

Dav said:
As for where the US could get the money, obviously the best way would be to stop the pork and use that money, but since that won't happen I guess the taxpayers are going to have to pay for their own protection. And as I said, this is about their protection.

My own protection involves getting the crooks out of Washington. I fail to see how encouraging those crooks to steal more of my money accomplishes this.

the makeout hobo · May 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Absolutely we shouldn't let that happen in Pakistan.

So we need to stay as far away as possible and leave them no one to blame but their own government and their own Taliban and their own Al Qeada and their own Allah for their troubles.

You, however, as a private citizen, should donate as much or as little of your own money to whatever anti-American cause you find most suitable for your purposes today.

OR! You could tell us where the US is going to get the money from to pay for this pointless act of charity.

How is helping refuges anti-american? Come on now. People who get help from America will be less likely to turn to the Taliban for help, swelling their numbers and giving them legitimacy.

I'm sorry, SA, but you have not the slightest clue about guerilla warfare, which is what we're facing. As the Mao quote goes, "the guerilla must swim in the people as the fish swims in the sea". The taliban are able to do what they do because they have a level of support among the people. If everyone in Swat and Waziristan stopped tolerating the Taliban, the war would be over. We need to do everything possible to make sure that the people like us, like the Pakistani government, and dislike the Taliban. You are ignorant of the basest concepts of COIN if you don't know this.

Indy · May 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, we don't.

INDIA has a problem.

If the Taliban wins in Pakistan, we can start bombing Pakistanis.

I don't see any problems there, do you?

I really hope I misunderstood your post. Just to clarify you aren't seriously saying that bombing Pakistanis is in any way a good thing right?

Kandahar · May 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, we don't.

INDIA has a problem.

The Taliban harbors terrorists that attack the United States. Or did you forget? And a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Taliban won't be a good thing for ANYONE.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If the Taliban wins in Pakistan, we can start bombing Pakistanis.

Oh, well that sounds like jolly good fun! Heck, let's help the Taliban take over the country, so that we can bomb the crap out of some Pakistanis. The costs (giving the Taliban a nuclear-armed state) are obviously much less than the benefits (being able to kill some brown people). :doh

Sometimes I really can't tell if you're being serious or if you're just being a ptsdkid-like troll for the sole purpose of trying to shock people. Either way, grow up. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
My own protection involves getting the crooks out of Washington. I fail to see how encouraging those crooks to steal more of my money accomplishes this.

If we want to end these problems so that we don't have to continually intervene in the Middle East and Central Asia, we need to help these countries develop. Lawless, undeveloped parts of the Muslim world are breeding grounds for terrorists.

bhkad · May 12, 2009

Dav said:
Where we initially went wrong in Iraq (and for that matter, Vietnam) is that we failed to carve a positive image of ourselves in the eyes of the people there.

Maybe we shouldn't let that happen here?

Agreed.

The entire basis of a non-conventional war is to gain the trust and support of the indigenous peoples so they won't side with the enemy.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 12, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
How is helping refuges anti-american? Come on now.

You mean besides the friggin' facts that:

1) We can't afford to help our own people in this country?

2) We're not constitutionally allowed to help our own citizens like that?

3) Those people in Pakland hate us.

4) What the hell is wrong with the rest of the world, how about them chipping in as much as we're usually required to, for a change?

5) Charity is a voluntary process, governments funded by confiscatory taxes cannot by definition be engaged in charitable acts.

6) We're not supposed to be the world's cop. Nor are we the world's paramedic.

the makeout hobo said:
People who get help from America will be less likely to turn to the Taliban for help, swelling their numbers and giving them legitimacy.

Save the money, use it to build a replacement for the B52, and more MOABs and JDAMS, and let their numbers swell.

the makeout hobo said:
I'm sorry, SA, but you have not the slightest clue about guerilla warfare, which is what we're facing.

You mean besides the fact that if we weren't there we wouldn't be facing it?

the makeout hobo said:
As the Mao quote goes, "the guerilla must swim in the people as the fish swims in the sea".

That's fine. Did you know that neutron bombs kill tapeworms as well as hosts?

the makeout hobo · May 13, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean besides the friggin' facts that:

1) We can't afford to help our own people in this country?

This is an entirely different issue, not related to the one at hand.

2) We're not constitutionally allowed to help our own citizens like that?

Relevence, how?

3) Those people in Pakland hate us.

Some do, some don't. It's in our best interest as a nation to make try to win over those that don't.

4) What the hell is wrong with the rest of the world, how about them chipping in as much as we're usually required to, for a change?

We should try to get the rest of the world to step up foreign aid too, but you can't change what someone else does, you can only change what you do. If you want to write a letter to Parliament, you're more than welcome to...

5) Charity is a voluntary process, governments funded by confiscatory taxes cannot by definition be engaged in charitable acts.

Semantics.

6) We're not supposed to be the world's cop. Nor are we the world's paramedic.

If not us, who? Don't you have any human compassion? Private acts have proven to be woefully inadequate. So has governmental action, but its still better than not having it.

Save the money, use it to build a replacement for the B52, and more MOABs and JDAMS, and let their numbers swell.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is never effective against a guerilla operation, short of genocide.

You mean besides the fact that if we weren't there we wouldn't be facing it?

What, in Afghanistan? We wouldn't, but it would be used as a base to plan further 9/11 attacks on America. Besides, Pakistan would still be facing them, and could potentially lead to their government being toppled and replaced with a theocratic dictatorship. With nukes. Sounds exciting, doesn't it?

That's fine. Did you know that neutron bombs kill tapeworms as well as hosts?

Did you know there's a concept such as "crimes against humanity"?

American · May 13, 2009

Kandahar said:
The Taliban harbors terrorists that attack the United States. Or did you forget? And a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Taliban won't be a good thing for ANYONE.

Oh, well that sounds like jolly good fun! Heck, let's help the Taliban take over the country, so that we can bomb the crap out of some Pakistanis. The costs (giving the Taliban a nuclear-armed state) are obviously much less than the benefits (being able to kill some brown people). :doh

Sometimes I really can't tell if you're being serious or if you're just being a ptsdkid-like troll for the sole purpose of trying to shock people. Either way, grow up. :roll:

If we want to end these problems so that we don't have to continually intervene in the Middle East and Central Asia, we need to help these countries develop. Lawless, undeveloped parts of the Muslim world are breeding grounds for terrorists.

I wouldn't worry too much, because Obama will sit down with them just like he will with ImOnAJihad. With Bush I was worried everyday about what could happen, but now it's like a beautiful spring day everyday.

Kandahar · May 13, 2009

American said:
I wouldn't worry too much, because Obama will sit down with them just like he will with ImOnAJihad. With Bush I was worried everyday about what could happen, but now it's like a beautiful spring day everyday.

Excellent contribution to the discussion. Thanks for sharing your fascinating insight on this complex subject. :2wave:

American · May 13, 2009

Kandahar said:
Excellent contribution to the discussion. Thanks for sharing your fascinating insight on this complex subject. :2wave:

Thanks, I didn't want you to forget your President's campaign promises.

Orion · May 13, 2009

I agree with the angle that making friends with the locals is necessary, but I disagree on a very minor point. The people of that region will never like the U.S. soldiers and the point is to not get them to like you. The point is to get them to see you as being more useful and beneficial to them than the Taliban. When NATO entered Afghanistan, one of the first things they did was give women the freedom to remove their burkhas, contributed funds to building schools, and began shipping in supplies to the damaged areas... this won NATO a lot of support.

However, like with Afghanistan, the Pakistani people don't want a permanent U.S. presence and want to self-govern. They'll just accept whoever can bring them peace and propserity the most readily.

obvious Child · May 14, 2009

bhkad said:
Agreed.

The entire basis of a non-conventional war is to gain the trust and support of the indigenous peoples so they won't side with the enemy.

Not only that, but to utilize their support in eliminating them. COIN operations are really 1/4 combat, 1/4 economic development, 1/4 aid and 1/4 diplomacy. The British Empire didn't engage in combat with the Malayan insurgents all that much, but did spend huge amounts of time on the other three.

I don't quite think that some people here realize that letting Pakistanis wallow in horrible conditions is producing a breeding ground for Taliban recruits.

obvious Child · May 14, 2009

Orius said:
I agree with the angle that making friends with the locals is necessary, but I disagree on a very minor point. The people of that region will never like the U.S. soldiers and the point is to not get them to like you. The point is to get them to see you as being more useful and beneficial to them than the Taliban.

The concept of "winning hearts and minds" is crap. It's really about getting them to tolerate us. We frankly don't give a **** if they like us. It's toleration that we care about.

Khayembii Communique · May 14, 2009

1) We can't afford to help our own people in this country?

The US government could afford to probably have a universal healthcare system along with full, free education to all its citizens without any tax increases if it just took it out of the "defense" budget.

US Ponders Wasting Money On Pakistani Refugees

Scarecrow Akhbar

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Dav

Scarecrow Akhbar

Dav

Scarecrow Akhbar

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

Indy

Phoenecian

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

bhkad

Scarecrow Akhbar

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Orion

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Khayembii Communique