http://us.cnn.com/...tan.aid/index.html?hpt=T2



Wow.
That makes it roughly $10 billion sent to pakistan to fight terrorism since 2001, and they've done absolutely nothing time and time again -- the military forces they do train/equip ends up on the Indian border, not the Afghan border. NATO convoys get ambushed in Pakistan and the Pakistani army seems to be nowhere to be found.

The US needs to stop working with Pakistan, start considering them as a corrupt beggar country, which can't (or more accurately won't) spend the time and effort or have the political will to support the US on the ground despite any assistance the US offers.

This $2b should come with a security deal to allow US soldiers to enter Pakistan and US aircraft to bomb the hell out of the border regions. Sending Pakistan $2b will probably result in the US seeing the same return on their investment compared to them sending ME the $2b.
Actually, they'd get more out of me, since I'd spend some of it to hire the A-Team (the 80's one -- they got stuff done) and MacGyver.

I see your post as grossly inaccurate.

Noone would hire McGyver over Chuck Norris



In all seriousness though. Does this suprise you? USA has a brilliant track record of throwing money at the perticular regime we honk can help us. It always turns out for the best. See Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, and Cuba. Errrr, anyone see a pattern there? We throw money at them, they turn on is, we invade them eventually!

Only logical conclusion is that we will invade Pakistan in the next 20 years.

All we have to do is wait for them to use up their nuclear arsenal then we sweep in!

You guys understand that this money is not going to Pakistan directly, but to international agencies (USAID/Dept. of State/Dept. of Justice/FBI/CIA/Contractors) that will work in Pakistan on the US's behalf, right? This will create thousands of jobs for US ex-pats in the process of helping a nation that is currently on the brink of turning into outright chaos, thereby protecting US security interests.

So far as see "Iran, Iraq...." - See eastern Europe, northwestern Africa, central Europe, 2/3 of south America, etc. All regions with successful implementation of security measures via US foreign aid, and all friendly to the US. You gotta remember that not all foreign development agencies have the same stellar track record as Blackwater and the US Armed Forces. :-P

Big picture people....big picture.

This will create thousands of jobs for US ex-pats in the process of helping a nation that is currently on the brink of turning into outright chaos, thereby protecting US security interests.

i would partially agree with what you said.

but with regards to what i said. 90% of the time that we finance a goverment that is in the midst of a regime change, is at war, or is descending into chaos, it comes back to bite us in the ass.

granted, all the places that you stated worked out quite nicely, but those places did not fall into the category i have laid out like pakistan does.

Is this a tip or a bribe?

/marshalimpression

not a chance in hell id hire the a team. in all those episodes they never shot a single person

1. We don't fund governments/regimes. The US does foreign aid through its own internal contractors. Usually it goes like this: US Gov't pays USAID -> USAID pays contracting agency (usually US company) -> Contracting agency executes project/implementation. US companies like Chemonics, East West Management, Blackwater, Urban Institute, etc make millions of dollars a year off of implementing solutions like what is being proposed.

2. Every one of those regions that I mentioned before descended into exactly where Pakistan is heading - and was heavily reliant on US foreign aid to rebuild. For the most part, Pakistan is a mirror image of what happened in eastern Europe 20 years ago, minus the Christian factor (it has been replaced with the Hindu factor).


The places I mentioned turned into exactly what Pakistan is going to become, and were rebuilt on international aid. One of the biggest reasons that we have the problems we have in the middle east is because a lot of folks over there felt we hung them out to dry (whether this is true or not is another discussion) when it no longer served our direct interests, and they suffered a great deal as a direct result.

You're joking... right Pang?

First off, your numbers are misleading. The $10 billion figure that's often quoted actually breaks down into three categories. Half of it is direct reimbursement to Pakistan for support that it has provided to US and coalition forces in Afghanistan. This is not assistance in any form, and was never meant to be used to fight the Taliban in Pakistan. The other $5 billion splits more or less evenly into "direct military funding" and "social development funding". Social development is for various education and farming programs.

If you didn't follow the math, that means that a grand total of $2.5 billion over 10 years has actually been given to fight the Taliban in Pakistan. Frankly, that's a pittance in terms of active military operations.

To put that in perspective, estimates for what the US has spent in Afghanistan range anywhere from $100 billion to over $300 billion. Yet attacks still take place within Afghanistan.

Knowing this, how is it reasonable to criticize Pakistan for the fact that attacks still take place within their borders?

From what I've read, I'm of the opinion that Pakistan has made at least as much (and probably more) progress in fighting the Taliban as the US has in Afghanistan. However, as long as the US is unable to exert enough influence within Afghanistan to stop the drug trade, Pakistan will never have the resources necessary to put down the Taliban insurgency in its entirety.

Pakistan needs more financial assistance, not less. But the greatest help that the US could offer them would be to clamp down on the drug trade in Afghanistan and cut off the flow of money into Pakistan.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The guy w/ no clue gets it! :-)

Well said, Foog.

Nice to see someone appreciating my verbose commentary NOW3P. Thank you kindly.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

2 billion? how much does a nuke cost?

the idea that a nuclear power would sell out for 2bi USD is a bad joke, isn`t it?

it's only for 5 years dude, it's more like we have a 5 year lease on Pakistan.

What's only for 5 years dibs?

By providing no context or clear intent for your posts, I've become confused as to what you're saying ought to happen. Would be mind clarifying?

As you do, please keep in mind that $2b is only about $12 to every Pakistani citizen... consider carefully how much sovereignty you expect them to give up, or accommodation you expect them to offer for that price.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

2 billion over 5 years.

i only feel the need to post, not the need to be understood. plus, the PSP's input box is too small to handle quotations.

what's the exchange rate for USD to Pakistani dollars?

and the purchasing power parity!

i forgot i even made this thread....

I gotta disagree with Foog to a degree, regardless of the amount of money being sent there. When Mushareff was in power, the al qaeda threat was not taken seriously. Pakistan has done better over time, but only once Al Qaeda and the Taliban started becoming a major threat to the Pakistani government.

I'd also argue that the "humanitarian aid" was basically a way for the US to try and sway the hearts and minds in the region, and was given with the tacit expectation that they would be a major partner in the war on terror. This partnership never really materialized until recently, then it was called off, then it was back on....

The saddest part about all of this is that it's the Pakistani citizens who will lose out, no matter how you slice it. That is ridiculously unfortunate :(

Pakistan uses the Rupee Pang, and last I checked it was somewhere around 84 or 85 Rupees to the USD.

To work with PPP, I'm having to compare 2008 and 2009 stats, but with a growth rate of only 2%, that shouldn't present much of a problem. Pakistan's 2008 PPP was about $430b with a proper 2009 GDP of $160b (USD). The difference factor comes out to 2.7

So, in that context, the $2 billion works out to the equivalent of $32.40 per citizen.

Remember though, that PPP is a reflection of cost of living expenses. It is not an accurate measure when dealing in "big ticket" items. Money invested in military operations will not go 2.7 times further in Pakistan than in the US.


I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, since my post was expressing my disagreement with you ;)

The rest of what you said isn't terribly contradictory though. I think that Pakistan has done more to fight Al Qaeda than you do, I also think that the money invested really is a pittance in comparison to the results you seem to expect.

I'm willing to just let that stand as a difference of opinion. I've said my piece on it anyway.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

ya, I'm fine letting it stand as a difference of opinion as well... :p

how much does a big mac cost in pakistan? that's the real test of purchasing power parity! :p

What everyone is ignoring is the U.S.'s careful avoidance of the 2bil bug. Quite clever, if you ask me.

You're right on 1/2 the goals of foreign aid Pang. A good deal of it is done with the intent of garnering good will. Projects under USAID, for example, usually have a full time contact at the local Embassy that helps them to "phrase" public information in a way that meets the US's goal in the region.

However, that are 2 other major factors that take priority over this:

1. Stabilizing regions, especially post war regions. While this usually ultimately accomplishes the whole good will thing (when not done under a Bush?), it is also necessary to avoid future conflicts and establish good local governance to provide a level of control over a population.

2. Ensuring continued and future trade partners for the US. Developing industrial nations means cheaper goods in the US, and more business opportunities abroad for Americans. It is ultimately in the best interest of the US to develop and strengthen the economies of current and potential trading partners.

one of these days the billionaires are going to run out of under developed countries to build sweat shops in.

i make one silly post about billionaires and Earth Empire forums get too big for my PSP to handle.

crazy meglomaniacs.

nuclear dollars ... used to be measured in bangs per buck ... now measured in bucks per bang - lets call it blackmail :P