Is Pakistan Worth America’s Investment?

[Viper0011.]

Cuz you are the first person here and American person that I have heard acknowledged that Jews have a hold over US lobby.

I think you are very misguided if you don't think Americans don't understand the Jewish influence. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and all my friends (a majority at least are Jews). They've worked very hard and have established themselves with tremendous influence. The American Financial System, the Law and the Media are pretty much owned by the Jewish community. Very good people and very helpful as well.
Frankly speaking, if people can resolve this Arab - Israeli issue, Jews would help Muslims better their image. No one likes to hear every other day that some people got killed somewhere due to the retail terror network that has sprung up under many Islamic government's noses. They need regulations and peaceful curriculum and focus so educated people teach Islam to others and highlight peaceful aspects of it more than anything. That way, the extremists mentality can be removed from the culture we find in many Muslim countries today.

The easiest example that comes to mind is US preventing Israel from selling its AWACS to China. That one single sale to China could have shaved off more than a decade for the Chinese AWACS R&D program and they are still not even near the Israeli tech after a decade of their program..

You realize if they had sold those AWACS, the Chinese may have gotten the capability earlier but the wouldn't be running an internal R&D organization as they'd focusing on integrating the capability more with their forces.

But here, they've now gone out of control and have many billions being poured into R&D every year from bullets, rockets, missiles, Radars / Awacs to Jets. I'd rather kept them limited by providing lower grade, limited capability then turn the Chinese into R&D power house where they'd produce everything and will became a competitor to the Western products. Just my two cents. A foe dependent on defensive equipment is a much weaker foe, and more than likely, won't mess with a bigger power. By enabling internal industry of China, they are no longer dependent on anyone and that is a concern to me.

Now back to the original topic. Pakistan is extremely essential to the US foreign policy and to the national interests of the US. A safe, modern and tolerant Pakistan can help us extend out influence in many places, it can control operations in neighboring areas against different terrorist regimes for us. We have a 70 year old relationship with them, albeit rocky at times, but it has produced results pretty much every time. They've also been working with the US military and the intelligence agencies for decades and contribute the most in the UN peacekeeping operations. Once the menace of terrorism is rooted out soon from Pakistan, it'll become one of the very fast growing economies and a huge market for the American businesses. Pakistan is the ONLY Muslim country and the 6th most populated country, representing tremendous growth, business opportunities and return on Investments for the American businessmen community. Pakistan just need to clean up the Taliban / Terrorism mess so she can advance towards a bright and modern, peaceful future.

 

[rockstar08]

I want us to close down as many bases as possible.
let China and Russia fight over the Israelis and the Middle East
and they are double dipping anyways. pretty sure they have sold secrets to the Russians and the Chinese for decades.

but then again Zionist Jews do have a grasp on America politically and economically so it'll never happen anyhow.

good to see at least one American accept that its all about interest , even we you have destroy other countries in the region or change the political powers
Good luck with removing the Jewish lobby from your Govt

If US want a ally in the region than yes , and if not than no ...
any Aid is attached with many " ifs and But's " ....

 

[Pakistani E]

Investment? BS. This investment is used to buy the leadership of Pakistan. It does no good to the ordinary citizens. And if we are going to get in to figures than this war has cost Pakistani economy $60 billion plus. $500 million is nothing compared to what we have faced.

 

[Ahmad1996]

I think you are very misguided if you don't think Americans don't understand the Jewish influence. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and all my friends (a majority at least are Jews). They've worked very hard and have established themselves with tremendous influence. The American Financial System, the Law and the Media are pretty much owned by the Jewish community. Very good people and very helpful as well.
Frankly speaking, if people can resolve this Arab - Israeli issue, Jews would help Muslims better their image. No one likes to hear every other day that some people got killed somewhere due to the retail terror network that has sprung up under many Islamic government's noses. They need regulations and peaceful curriculum and focus so educated people teach Islam to others and highlight peaceful aspects of it more than anything. That way, the extremists mentality can be removed from the culture we find in many Muslim countries today.



You realize if they had sold those AWACS, the Chinese may have gotten the capability earlier but the wouldn't be running an internal R&D organization as they'd focusing on integrating the capability more with their forces.

But here, they've now gone out of control and have many billions being poured into R&D every year from bullets, rockets, missiles, Radars / Awacs to Jets. I'd rather kept them limited by providing lower grade, limited capability then turn the Chinese into R&D power house where they'd produce everything and will became a competitor to the Western products. Just my two cents. A foe dependent on defensive equipment is a much weaker foe, and more than likely, won't mess with a bigger power. By enabling internal industry of China, they are no longer dependent on anyone and that is a concern to me.

Now back to the original topic. Pakistan is extremely essential to the US foreign policy and to the national interests of the US. A safe, modern and tolerant Pakistan can help us extend out influence in many places, it can control operations in neighboring areas against different terrorist regimes for us. We have a 70 year old relationship with them, albeit rocky at times, but it has produced results pretty much every time. They've also been working with the US military and the intelligence agencies for decades and contribute the most in the UN peacekeeping operations. Once the menace of terrorism is rooted out soon from Pakistan, it'll become one of the very fast growing economies and a huge market for the American businesses. Pakistan is the ONLY Muslim country and the 6th most populated country, representing tremendous growth, business opportunities and return on Investments for the American businessmen community. Pakistan just need to clean up the Taliban / Terrorism mess so she can advance towards a bright and modern, peaceful future.

Where I grew up I saw ppl from many different countries I even know an American who doesn't wants to go to America because he says that ppl there won't accept him as he converted to a Muslim. But few people don't tell about a whole nation. Your logic about Arab-Israeli is only based on that there was no Palestine there so that means that land is about what you and your friends forgot that there were thousands of people living there and they used to be part of the Ottoman empire under the province called Palestine. But how would you understand your nation was built on the blood of American natives, your kind like to wipe nations. What your perception is it belongs to specific community and it's much different from the general one. Also it's about Zionists not Jews there are good and bad ppl in society but what the society does defines it. So next time I think I will use Zionists rather than Jews. Your government just sell you ideas like WMD in Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq etc, just tell me one thing do you really think your country's friendship has been worth to any country they went in, look at their past and current situation America has destroyed them in every possible way, Afghanistan is the hub of producing opium.

 

[Paksanity]

Pakistan offers among the best investment rules in the world but does not offer conducive business environment. If we could resolve these problems, there could be stampede of investors running to Pakistan:

1. Security environment/ terorrism issue
2. Energy crisis
3. Inconsistent government policies
4. Lack of transparency in justice system especialy consumer courts

Never mind the image problem; there is no image problem for an investor. He just wants his money to grow. Investors dont go to India because it has some great image at World stage, they just go to grow their money.

Pakistan does not impose conditions like investing portion of profit back in Pakistan etc. So from an investor's point of view it is heaven if not the problems associated with it.

 

[VCheng]

............
Pakistan still receives more assistance than most countries, a holdover from the days when Washington mistakenly thought it might be a real partner. But the levels are declining and should continue to do so. Cutting aid precipitously would be unwise, but a managed decrease is in line with more realistic expectations about the diminished potential for bilateral cooperation...............

Until the next inevitable crisis.

 

[Gandhi follower]

It doesn’t take much to stir controversy over America’s relationship with Pakistan. The latest dust-up involves $532 million in economic assistance that the United States expects to provide later this year. Last week, Pakistani officials jumped the gun by suggesting the money is closer to being disbursed than it is; the news annoyed India, which doesn’t think the aid is merited.

That is a familiar complaint. Since 9/11, the United States has provided Pakistan with billions of dollars, mostly in military aid, to help fight extremists. There are many reasons to have doubts about the investment. Still, it is in America’s interest to maintain assistance — at a declining level — at least for the time being. But much depends on what the money will be used for. One condition for new aid should be that Pakistan do more for itself — by cutting back on spending for nuclear weapons and requiring its elites to pay taxes.

Doubts about the aid center on Pakistan’s army, which has long played a double game, accepting America’s money while enabling some militant groups, including members of the Afghan Taliban who have been battling American and Afghan troops in Afghanistan. The relationship hit bottom in 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan and was killed by a Navy SEAL team. But it has since improved. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit Islamabad soon.

After militants massacred 148 students and teachers at an army-run school in Peshawar last month, Pakistan’s government promised that it would no longer distinguish between “bad” militant groups, which are seeking to bring down the Pakistani state, and “good” militant groups that have been supported and exploited by the army to attack India and wield influence in Afghanistan. But there is little evidence that the army has gone after the “good” groups in a serious way.

This double game is a big reason that the administration has been unable to fulfill Congress’s mandate to certify that Pakistan has met certain requirements, including preventing its territory from being used for terror attacks, as a condition of assistance. Instead, officials have had to rely on a national security waiver to keep aid flowing.

There is a case for doing that. After much foot-dragging, the Pakistani army is finally battling militants in the North Waziristan region, and American officials say there has been real progress.

Also, Pakistan has allowed American drone attacks against militants along the border to resume, and is cooperating with the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. Pakistan’s help is essential as Mr. Ghani pursues peace talks with the Taliban. It also counts as progress that Pakistan completed atransition from one civilian government to another in 2013 and that the current government, while fragile, remains in place.

American officials say aid has allowed them to maintain some modest leverage with Pakistan’s leaders and to invest in projects that advance both countries’ interests, including energy, more than 600 miles of new roads and support for democratic governance. But it makes no sense to subsidize Pakistan’s policy failures, which include an obsession with nuclear weapons, paltry investments in education and a refusal to seriously combat extremism.

Pakistan still receives more assistance than most countries, a holdover from the days when Washington mistakenly thought it might be a real partner. But the levels are declining and should continue to do so. Cutting aid precipitously would be unwise, but a managed decrease is in line with more realistic expectations about the diminished potential for bilateral cooperation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/opinion/is-pakistan-worth-americas-investment.html?_r=0

 

[Gandhi follower]

@Syed.Ali.Haider

 

[VCheng]

@Syed.Ali.Haider

Already responded:

Is Pakistan Worth America’s Investment? | Page 2

 

[Kompromat]

Pakistan shouldn't accept any kind of aid from the US. The money goes to the fat cats for doing America's bidding.

 

[root]

Investment to buy politicians.Look at the history US aid only destroyed Pakistan if they have invested in education sector,development sector than Pakistan would have been better place but no they invested to buy leaders and to play their proxy wars.Keep your investment with yourself we don’t need it.

 

[Viper0011.]

Where I grew up I saw ppl from many different countries I even know an American who doesn't wants to go to America because he says that ppl there won't accept him as he converted to a Muslim. But few people don't tell about a whole nation. Your logic about Arab-Israeli is only based on that there was no Palestine there so that means that land is about what you and your friends forgot that there were thousands of people living there and they used to be part of the Ottoman empire under the province called Palestine. But how would you understand your nation was built on the blood of American natives, your kind like to wipe nations. What your perception is it belongs to specific community and it's much different from the general one. Also it's about Zionists not Jews there are good and bad ppl in society but what the society does defines it. So next time I think I will use Zionists rather than Jews. Your government just sell you ideas like WMD in Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq etc, just tell me one thing do you really think your country's friendship has been worth to any country they went in, look at their past and current situation America has destroyed them in every possible way, Afghanistan is the hub of producing opium.

You've mixed up a bunch of things. Let's focus on these one by one:
1) The "land" that was a part of Ottoman Empire has millions of people on both sides. Do we keep referring to Ottoman or do we take a look at the calendar today and say, let's create peace with a two state solution so both sides can live there peacefully?

2) As far as an American not going back home.....sure. There are a few like that. But the percentage is very small. I know a LOT more Pakistani, Indians, French, Iranians, even British who like the US a lot more than their homeland and would not want to leave the US for anything else. This point is irrelevant. What do they hope to get in Pakistan or India, in order to be rich and successful? A US Visa. Period!

3) Our nation was built on a lot of wars. We have a warrior background. The "Native Americans" you refer to, didn't fight with the United States of America. They fought with the Colonial System, the Brits, the French who initially built colonies. So your reference in invalid there too. The same Native Americans enjoy a preferred status in everything today, their land and all is protected and tax free, and they get many benefits. We can't undo what happened hundreds of years ago, but our system is designed to try to make it up to them today on the sad loss that they suffered.

4) Every government tells its people stuff. Indian government has scared its people off of Pakistan till the 90's and then it turned into China, to keep a larger military. Pakistan has done the same for many, many decades. Saudi scare their people from Iran and Iran scares its people off Saudi and other regimes around them. Its a circle. Can't help you there.

The wars we went to, were to protect many innocent lives. Whether you agree or not, is Iraq really as bad of a shit hole as it used to be? NO, they have an ISIS problem in certain areas of the country but if you go to some major cities, see the reconstruction and economic growth by your eyes. Same goes for Serbia, if we hadn't gone in, imagine if one single Muslim soul would be left by now???? So we did save many millions. And the USSR....if we hadn't helped Pakistan.....you would have become a Southern Russian State by 1982. No questions asked. The purpose behind the Soviet invasion was to get to "Warm Water" aka, Karachi. Iran was already becoming friendly with them with Shah being gone so they weren't concerned with that. They wanted Karachi and Baluchistan.

And if we hadn't killed hundred of thousand of Al-Qaeda member since 2001, imagine what they would be doing to Pakistan right now. The little amount left has paralyzed your country and your way of life. If the thousands killed by the US military were still alive, they would be crawling into Pakistani streets with total immunity. There is a movie "Black Hawk Down", if you play it, that's how your streets would be looking like as their next target was the Nuclear armed Pakistan who wouldn't have been able to deal with over a 150,000 insane, barberic Al-Qaeda terrorists. So we saved your country twice in the past 40 years. THANK YOU Uncle Sam!!!

Pakistan shouldn't accept any kind of aid from the US. The money goes to the fat cats for doing America's bidding.

Aero - how exactly is PA running for the past 15 years? And how do you see it running without the US aid, both $$$ wise and equipment wise???

The US aid's money used to be wasted on the "fat cats" but they also included a few cats within the military too. In fact, the Fattest cat was from the military and she would eat most of the food if you know what I mean....

My humble point, many in Pakistan haven't learned to build a real relationship with the US. You guys want an Easter style friendship where two buddies hangout holding hands all the time. That's not how the US works. If you build this relationship right, trust me, you can take Pakistan to another level economically. Do what the Indians did, offer an open market for IT and all and kill all terrorists. Once peace is there, investments will flow and you can take your country into top 15 economies over a decade. Trust me, when you have a peaceful modern society and hard cash to offer, no one will say no to you.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

@C130 My money's on Oregon.

3) Our nation was built on a lot of wars. We have a warrior background. The "Native Americans" you refer to, didn't fight with the United States of America. They fought with the Colonial System, the Brits, the French who initially built colonies. So your reference in invalid there too. The same Native Americans enjoy a preferred status in everything today, their land and all is protected and tax free, and they get many benefits. We can't undo what happened hundreds of years ago, but our system is designed to try to make it up to them today on the sad loss that they suffered.

The Native Americans did fight the US Government. The Government's Calvary and Infantry with Gatling guns just won.

The N.A. were driven from their lush lands and given the lowest worthless land out west. Ironically it turned out that land had silver, gold, and uranium.

I agree with your last line.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I agree that European bases don't add much to US security any more because Russia is not going to attack NATO anytime soon. And if the situation as such arises, then these bases can again be supplied by US at short notice because of extensive logistics and protocols that have been set up over the decades.

I also agree with the position that China can be Israel's new sugar daddy but the Jews wont be as embedded in either the civil society or the Governmental structure of China..

But is US willing to let go Israel and more specifically the Israeli technology, Engineers, Scientists, University and research output which helps make sure that US is always at the cutting edge of science and technology? The AWACS is just one example out of many where Israeli products going to Chinese or Russian hands could undermine American technological edge. The Chinese after investing more than a decade and billions of dollars are not even close to attaining the sophistication and technology that Israel has in its AWACS and more importantly - that Israel was willing to sell. It was the extra-ordinary influence that US has on Israel that made Israel renege on a commercial contract with China.

So Israel and US both have extra-ordinary influence on each other. And both work together in multiple areas. Ofcourse divergence of views is only natural on many issues even among allies, but - in my opinion solely - they have more similarities in interests than the differences.
It wont be fair to castigate one side over the other for pushing any particular agenda that either US or Israel might have.

I would welcome
@Solomon2 , @gambit , @Nihonjin1051 and @LeveragedBuyout to the discussion.

I will keep this short, since PDF is not conducive to a calm discussion of Israel. This topic comes up every other month here, and the answer is always the same.

You are entirely right, your opponents are wrong.

We have veto power over their defense industries and foreign policy (and even, to some degree, their domestic policy, e.g. house building regulations). No American soldier has ever been sent to fight for Israel, and none ever will, unlike with our other allies. They anchor our interests in the region, often doing work that we cannot (help Jordan when it was invaded by Syria, bomb Osirak, bomb the Syrian reactor, etc.). Those are the "hard interests," the soft interests include intertwined economies, joint R&D, and shared Western values.

If we could pay our deadbeat NATO allies to defend themselves, it would be a bargain compared to the raw deal we have today (we pay instead of them, plus our troops are at risk), and our relationship with Israel is far more advantageous than our relationship with, say, the Philippines, who dislike us and kicked us out, but whom we are bound by treaty to defend. We have many "mutual defense" treaties, but does anyone seriously believe that Taiwan, Japan, Germany, etc. even has the capability to help the US if it is attacked in North America, let alone the will? At least with Israel, the responsibilities and expectations are symmetrical.

Israel serves our interests very well in the hierarchy of the alliance, it is one of the last allies I would look to eliminate.

 

[Viper0011.]

@C130 The Native Americans did fight the US Government. The Government's Calvary and Infantry with Gatling guns just won.

The N.A. were driven from their lush lands and given the lowest worthless land out west. Ironically it turned out that land had silver, gold, and uranium. I agree with your last line.

You missed the point. The fight with the N.A was a lot different in President George Washington and Henry Knox's time. The point I was trying to make was, the original battles, clashes and violence had started with the introduction of European immigrants. There were significant property, land and resource related battles and violence that had been happening way before the US was actually formed and it was primarily with the Brits, the French, etc.

Later, after the official birth of the US. The battles or wars with N.A weren't to that initial magnitude. The point President GW and Knox were trying to make was to bring the N.A tribes under the law so that this random violence could be stopped and due to resistance, there were small wars. The N.A tribes were stopping building of Highways and other Industrial business and no state will allow that obviously.

And yes, the Gatling gun always wins. The USN still uses it to protect its multi-billion dollar ships in the shape of CIWS (of course much modern than hundreds of years ago).