Why they get Pakistan wrong
- Thread starter Solomon2
- Start date
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Specify, please.
T90TankGuy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 9,427
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
he cant , he seems to be looking for boogies where there are none.
you quoted only some part of my post #6 in ur post #15. What about the other part of the post where i asked u a question.
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Looked off-topic to me so I didn't bother to answer.
Good article and thanks for posting!
Pakistan is certainly much different than how many in the West think it to be. Hopefully a few more Western readers will get an insight on Pakistani motivations in Afghanistan.
Pakistan is certainly much different than how many in the West think it to be. Hopefully a few more Western readers will get an insight on Pakistani motivations in Afghanistan.
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
majority of Pakistanis have been calling for an end to the so-called ''aid'' for some years now; we feel that it alters the priorities (read loyalties) of our politicians --who often have a habit of mucking about and making a mockery of the system, which is already in need of some overhaul.
i think sooner or later, America will need to learn to focus on its own house and stop trying to play the global policeman. They should focus on the rising joblessness (underemployment, by the way, is just as dangerous). They should focus on its own domestic issues and problems and stop trying to fight fake wars in which innocent and mostly poor people get killed. In order to fight a war against terrorism, the U.S. basically went against the core ideals and principles which its fore-fathers fought so hard and nobly to attain --such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; they went against the principle of fair opportunity to trial by claiming that ''enemy combatants'' (many who have been U.S. citizens) can be treated differently from other suspects.
if the U.S. and Pakistan want to resume a damaged strategic partnership --then they need to learn to be able to see eye to eye on certain issues; and for them to respect and heed to eachother's concerns. Partnership and trust is a 2-way thing.
i think sooner or later, America will need to learn to focus on its own house and stop trying to play the global policeman. They should focus on the rising joblessness (underemployment, by the way, is just as dangerous). They should focus on its own domestic issues and problems and stop trying to fight fake wars in which innocent and mostly poor people get killed. In order to fight a war against terrorism, the U.S. basically went against the core ideals and principles which its fore-fathers fought so hard and nobly to attain --such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; they went against the principle of fair opportunity to trial by claiming that ''enemy combatants'' (many who have been U.S. citizens) can be treated differently from other suspects.
if the U.S. and Pakistan want to resume a damaged strategic partnership --then they need to learn to be able to see eye to eye on certain issues; and for them to respect and heed to eachother's concerns. Partnership and trust is a 2-way thing.
Good point. Especially given the limited returns on aid giving, more trade will definitely open the doors for a more healthier (and closely aligned) partnership in the long run. Right now, if aid stops we go our way (with a loss of maybe a billion a year) and the Americans their way. If we are tied together through trade, that would be a multi-billion dollar enterprise meaning that it would make more sense for Pakistan to look closely at the gains and losses if such relationship were to go south.
Secondly, the benefit is across the population and not just security or government related.
Secondly, the benefit is across the population and not just security or government related.
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
Read a report from the US congress committee about something a couple of days ago, and it said that in the fiscal year 2010 i think, from about 1.6 Billion US $ aid, only 170Million was used for it's intended purposes!!
And as said in the OP, it makes up for 0.3 percent of our GDP, and 2.37 $ i think per person, so , I dont think cutting it off would make a difference to the common man.
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
nowdays it seems it's more ''they'' who think that shutting the tap of ''aid'' would cause a sudden crisis in Pakistan...that is ridiculous.
contrary to popular belief, the economy is in a very tricky position --but not a precarious one. It's actually somewhat stable, though the debt-to-gdp ratio is something that should be addressed (many countries have this issue).
trade facilitation is one thing we've brought up time and time again; being a capitalistic and ''free trade'' society, it's surprising that it takes the U.S. long to heed to basic issues brought up by people they once called ''major non NATO allies'' ...
the ''aid'' Pakistan has received in the past 2 years has been absolute peanuts, so those who claim (or, in the interests of trying to boost ones self-worth -- wish to believe) U.S. ''aid'' to Pakistan is vital --- those people should check their facts.
they should also keep in mind that when Pakistan works with IFIs (e.g. World Bank, ADB, IDB, DFID, etc.) they receive soft loans; sometimes loans are re-scheduled. Sometimes they aren't. But loans accrue interest on top of the principal. Loans are PAID BACK, they aren't ''aid''
contrary to popular belief, the economy is in a very tricky position --but not a precarious one. It's actually somewhat stable, though the debt-to-gdp ratio is something that should be addressed (many countries have this issue).
trade facilitation is one thing we've brought up time and time again; being a capitalistic and ''free trade'' society, it's surprising that it takes the U.S. long to heed to basic issues brought up by people they once called ''major non NATO allies'' ...
the ''aid'' Pakistan has received in the past 2 years has been absolute peanuts, so those who claim (or, in the interests of trying to boost ones self-worth -- wish to believe) U.S. ''aid'' to Pakistan is vital --- those people should check their facts.
they should also keep in mind that when Pakistan works with IFIs (e.g. World Bank, ADB, IDB, DFID, etc.) they receive soft loans; sometimes loans are re-scheduled. Sometimes they aren't. But loans accrue interest on top of the principal. Loans are PAID BACK, they aren't ''aid''
Similar threads
- Article
