Anees
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- -2
Pakistan has proven time after time that it plays both sides of the fence when it comes to its relationship with the United States and other countries that aren't our allies.
We can't totally isolate Pakistan because it has helped us in the past with intelligence and other types of aid, but we certainly shouldn't be in the business of selling the nation fighter planes.
Last month, the U.S government approved the sale of eight Lockheed Martin-made F-16 fighter jets to the Middle Eastern country for $700 million, partially subsidized by the U.S. Also included in the sale is radar and electronic warfare equipment.
While the deal is a great one for Lockheed Martin, which has the chance to extend its production of the F-16 jets at its Forth Worth, Texas, manufacturing complex, it's a deal that shouldn't become a reality.
Despite protests, the Obama administration pushed through the sale of the jets to Pakistan, which the U.S. gives billions in dollars to, citing the need for humanitarian and counter-terror reasons.
The Obama administration couldn't be any more wrong on this issue.
Thankfully, we have people such as U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., looking out for us by trying to stop this sale from going through and possibly preventing an arms race between Pakistan and neighboring India.
Paul is dead on when he says, "We should not be selling U.S. military technology to a country whose intelligence and military apparatuses are actively assisting the Afghan Taliban. Over the last few years we have seen that Pakistan is an uncertain ally when it comes to cooperating with the U.S."
Kentucky's junior senator used the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 to try and stop the sale. Paul introduced a joint resolution of disapproval Feb. 25, but unfortunately it was voted down Thursday by a 71-24 margin.
The Arms Export Control Act includes a process whereby a senator can introduce a resolution to block arms sales.
It is very disappointing that this was voted down because this is a no-brainer. Paul realized that it was a no-brainer and bad for our country. It's very unfortunate that many of his colleagues didn't see it that way.
Arguing for passage on the Senate floor Thursday, Paul correctly stated, “I can’t in good conscience look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send the money to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad. Pakistan is at best a frenemy. Part friend – and a lot of enemy.”
Another troubling aspect of this sale is the claim that the planes will be used for humanitarian aid. F-16s are fighter jets designed to destroy enemy forces or moving targets, not to distribute humanitarian aid.
The Obama administration could make a much better sale to the American public if they were selling C-130s, which are cargo planes generally used for transportation and humanitarian efforts.
Paul was also correct when he says American taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on the sale of these planes to Pakistan, which has been reported to be providing a safe space for the Haqqani terror network to operate.
The final argument that could be made, which Paul has been arguing for years, is why are we doing business with a country that sentenced Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped us locate and kill Osama bin Laden, to 33 years in a prison in that country? This alone should tell you all you need to know about what an unreliable ally Pakistan can be.
Afridi is rotting away in a Pakistani jail for helping us find one of the largest mass murderers in history, and this is a country to which we want to sell advanced fighter planes?
We think the answer is a simple no.
Although Paul wasn't successful in this vote, he stood up to a horrible plan by the Obama administration and if nothing else got to let the American public see what a bad foreign policy move this really was.
Mistake to sell fighter jets to Pakistan | Our Opinion | bgdailynews.com
We can't totally isolate Pakistan because it has helped us in the past with intelligence and other types of aid, but we certainly shouldn't be in the business of selling the nation fighter planes.
Last month, the U.S government approved the sale of eight Lockheed Martin-made F-16 fighter jets to the Middle Eastern country for $700 million, partially subsidized by the U.S. Also included in the sale is radar and electronic warfare equipment.
While the deal is a great one for Lockheed Martin, which has the chance to extend its production of the F-16 jets at its Forth Worth, Texas, manufacturing complex, it's a deal that shouldn't become a reality.
Despite protests, the Obama administration pushed through the sale of the jets to Pakistan, which the U.S. gives billions in dollars to, citing the need for humanitarian and counter-terror reasons.
The Obama administration couldn't be any more wrong on this issue.
Thankfully, we have people such as U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., looking out for us by trying to stop this sale from going through and possibly preventing an arms race between Pakistan and neighboring India.
Paul is dead on when he says, "We should not be selling U.S. military technology to a country whose intelligence and military apparatuses are actively assisting the Afghan Taliban. Over the last few years we have seen that Pakistan is an uncertain ally when it comes to cooperating with the U.S."
Kentucky's junior senator used the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 to try and stop the sale. Paul introduced a joint resolution of disapproval Feb. 25, but unfortunately it was voted down Thursday by a 71-24 margin.
The Arms Export Control Act includes a process whereby a senator can introduce a resolution to block arms sales.
It is very disappointing that this was voted down because this is a no-brainer. Paul realized that it was a no-brainer and bad for our country. It's very unfortunate that many of his colleagues didn't see it that way.
Arguing for passage on the Senate floor Thursday, Paul correctly stated, “I can’t in good conscience look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send the money to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad. Pakistan is at best a frenemy. Part friend – and a lot of enemy.”
Another troubling aspect of this sale is the claim that the planes will be used for humanitarian aid. F-16s are fighter jets designed to destroy enemy forces or moving targets, not to distribute humanitarian aid.
The Obama administration could make a much better sale to the American public if they were selling C-130s, which are cargo planes generally used for transportation and humanitarian efforts.
Paul was also correct when he says American taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on the sale of these planes to Pakistan, which has been reported to be providing a safe space for the Haqqani terror network to operate.
The final argument that could be made, which Paul has been arguing for years, is why are we doing business with a country that sentenced Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped us locate and kill Osama bin Laden, to 33 years in a prison in that country? This alone should tell you all you need to know about what an unreliable ally Pakistan can be.
Afridi is rotting away in a Pakistani jail for helping us find one of the largest mass murderers in history, and this is a country to which we want to sell advanced fighter planes?
We think the answer is a simple no.
Although Paul wasn't successful in this vote, he stood up to a horrible plan by the Obama administration and if nothing else got to let the American public see what a bad foreign policy move this really was.
Mistake to sell fighter jets to Pakistan | Our Opinion | bgdailynews.com
