Investment from US as US is sending 15 trade delegations to Pakistan next year: Wells

[Thorough Pro]

When we send trade delegations, our investing companies and efforts always come with the following:

1. We will be transparent. You will know the terms of the investment, loans, or aid.
Just like the F-16 deal where we were paying for 60 F-16s you US was receiving the payment for Wheat

2. We will happily submit our business, investment terms, and or loan terms to world bodies that are in place to ensure the loaner is not getting fleeced. Typically referred to as the Paris group. No hidden terms of high-interest deals from the citizens
That's a new one. How a loaner (lender) can be fleeced? so the Paris group makes sure the borrower gets fleeced by the loaner?

3. We will not insist that workers, companies, and support shall be only American companies. OR demand as a part of the deal that American workers will be shifted into your country over hiring your workforce.
All depends on the deal. If we get the loan, then we decide who work son the project. If the investor does the investment, then they decide what and how to build and who works on that. Would US let Pakistan engage Chinese companies to build projects from US investments?

4. Our investing companies will provide skill-based training and an ecosystem that ensures the host country's workforce learn, get skilled, and can be a workforce that can run things on their own.
Again depends on what industry the investment is in, abasic industry or an advanced tech industry.

US knows they blundered big time by abandoning Pakistan, we have now tasted the real friendship and "freedom" unlike so called friendship with US which was nothing more than working as a disposable tool for US interests, even if it meant self sacrifice and destruction. Take this all to India, we are doing just fine.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Let us start with you catching my error of typing 'loaner' when meaning 'loanee'. I'm sure you knew what I meant but thought to play cheeky and pretend otherwise. Well, thank you for catching that typo.

1. Wheat for F16? I'm afraid I was not aware. I knew we were giving Pakistan F16s at half price by funding 50% of it but honestly never heard of wheat for F16. Even so, what is your point? Was it not transparent or did you think we were unfair?

2. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans from countries work. You see, when we invested in China, all our US companies built out Chinese projects, employing the majority of Chinese citizens so they could be skilled as a workforce.

 

[Syed1.]

Should send them back from the airport. This smells rotten from a mile away.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Yes wheat for F-16's............you need to read some history of US-Pak relations before "trying" to convince us of how good a deal Pakistan will get with US. We've been there, seen that, and learned our lessons the hard way.

Let us start with you catching my error of typing 'loaner' when meaning 'loanee'. I'm sure you knew what I meant but thought to play cheeky and pretend otherwise. Well, thank you for catching that typo.

1. Wheat for F16? I'm afraid I was not aware. I knew we were giving Pakistan F16s at half price by funding 50% of it but honestly never heard of wheat for F16. Even so, what is your point? Was it not transparent or did you think we were unfair?

2. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans from countries work. You see, when we invested in China, all our US companies built out Chinese projects, employing the majority of Chinese citizens so they could be skilled as a workforce.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Yes wheat for F-16's............you need to read some history of US-Pak relations before "trying" to convince us of how good a deal Pakistan will get with US. We've been there, seen that, and learned our lessons the hard way.

Are you saying wheat for F16 was a bad deal, was it hidden, were the terms not open for all, did you not get us funding 50% of the cost of those planes and should we have asked for a port or maybe the city of Karachi on a 50-year lease ala some sovereign land lease like the Chinese demanded instead?

 

[Thorough Pro]

No! That was a great deal and now we want more deals like that with China, what's your problem?

Are you saying wheat for F16 was a bad deal, was it hidden, were the terms not open for all, did you not get us funding 50% of the cost of those planes and should we have asked for a port or maybe the city of Karachi on a 50-year lease ala some sovereign land lease like the Chinese demanded instead?

 

[M.Bison]

No! That was a great deal and now we want more deals like that with China, what's your problem?

It is not wheat for f-16...

It was f-16 for USD and then the sale was blocked by congress.
The money was not returned but instead, wheat and soy bean and other crap was offered by the USA to Pakistan as compensation..

 

[Thorough Pro]

Ok smart pants, you think I brought it up not knowing about it?

It is not wheat for f-16...

It was f-16 for USD and then the sale was blocked by congress.
The money was not returned but instead, wheat and soy bean and other crap was offered by the USA to Pakistan as compensation..

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

It is not wheat for f-16...

It was f-16 for USD and then the sale was blocked by congress.
The money was not returned but instead, wheat and soy bean and other crap was offered by the USA to Pakistan as compensation..

Like I stated I never heard of such a deal, it's frankly absurd on its face. I've only heard of this https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/22/world/us-to-pay-pakistan-back-for-undelivered-jets.html

 

[M.Bison]

Like I stated I never heard of such a deal, it's frankly absurd on its face. I've only heard of this https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/22/world/us-to-pay-pakistan-back-for-undelivered-jets.html

Yeah well, thats just it. The full amount was not returned in cash. "The United States has agreed to pay Pakistan $324.6 million in cash and an additional $142.3 million through other means as reimbursement for 28 F-16 fighter planes that Pakistan paid for in 1989 but never received, the White House announced today."

"
It said the United States would provide white wheat valued at about $60 million at prevailing market prices. The remaining $80 million will be decided by mutual agreement."

Either way, why do you care what happens to Pakistan? Isn't Pakistan a terrorist nation, let them get into predatory loans with the Chinese. It will only benefit the USA in the long run. Doesn't US foreign policy have another nation to destroy or prop up a dictator somewhere? Let the Chinese have some fun in Pakistan.

Why do Alice Wells and Trump suddenly care about the Pakistani people?

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Yeah well, thats just it. The full amount was not returned in cash. "The United States has agreed to pay Pakistan $324.6 million in cash and an additional $142.3 million through other means as reimbursement for 28 F-16 fighter planes that Pakistan paid for in 1989 but never received, the White House announced today."

"
It said the United States would provide white wheat valued at about $60 million at prevailing market prices. The remaining $80 million will be decided by mutual agreement."

Either way, why do you care what happens to Pakistan? Isn't Pakistan a terrorist nation, let them get into predatory loans with the Chinese. It will only benefit the USA in the long run. Doesn't US foreign policy have another nation to destroy or prop up a dictator somewhere? Let the Chinese have some fun in Pakistan.

Why do Alice Wells and Trump suddenly care about the Pakistani people?

You asked "Either way, why do you care what happens to Pakistan?" At the risk of giving you an oversimplified answer- We care because of national security, just as the Chinese care for similar reasons.

 

[Syed1.]

Like I stated I never heard of such a deal, it's frankly absurd on its face. I've only heard of this https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/22/world/us-to-pay-pakistan-back-for-undelivered-jets.html

You do realize your hearing or not hearing of a news doesn't make it disappear?

Tomorrow if someone says they haven't heard of 9/11 would it mean it never happened?

 

[El Sidd]

All the concert dance in NYC to invoke merciful rain of economic exploitation worked?

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

You do realize your hearing or not hearing of a news doesn't make it disappear?

Tomorrow if someone says they haven't heard of 9/11 would it mean it never happened?

Agreed, hence I never disputed it. The actual point being discussed was not what was offered in exchange as in the terms of the payback. It was, were the terms fair, equitable, mutually agreed up and transparent/open. Unlike the Chinese secretive and harsh terms

 

[M.Bison]

You asked "Either way, why do you care what happens to Pakistan?" At the risk of giving you an oversimplified answer- We care because of national security, just as the Chinese care for similar reasons.

That is a good answer. I wonder what Pakistan has to do with National security.
Maybe an energy independent China is bad for the United States. It is true that once Gwadar becomes militarized the Chinese will have access to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman. It will also decrease china's reliance on the straits of malacca.
What I want to know is why don't you just be truthful and say that... Why do you have to give it the guise of development and humanitarian aid?

You know well that the United States could give two shits about Pakistani-Chinese loans.

Agreed, hence I never disputed it. The actual point being discussed was not what was offered in exchange as in the terms of the payback. It was, were the terms fair, equitable, mutually agreed up and transparent/open. Unlike the Chinese secretive and harsh terms

Just because it is secretive does not mean it is harsh.. You know that better than anyone else foggy.