Article

2008-05-16 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-05-16 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 On 9-11 Pakistan was under US sanctions. The thinking was: US could leverage both military support in the GWOT, and contribute to democraticization in Central Asia. Unfortunately, the NATO intervention legitimized political Islam and allowed neo-Taliban parties to thrive in Pashto regions. Notwithstanding public support for Islamofascists, we need to attack them head on, regardless what Karzai (Pashto) says or does. Afghanistan is mostly pacified; it is only the opium districts where we find jihad vermin. That is where we have to wipe them out, even if we have to use napalm.

Posted by McZoid 2008-05-16 04:15|| 2008-05-16 04:15|| Front Page Top

#2 Agree or Dis-Agree:

All foreign aid moneys that are proposed to be given away to any Nation or sub-Nation [Pakistan for instance] shall be raised by partially taxing them from all the Employees of that said department which proposes that give away; for instance State Dept. Employees.

Same holds true for Congress Critters...

|> Same for any other Gubmint Dept.

|> Based on a sliding scale...of course..

|> 30% of Gross for all departments [*exception]

|> 99% for *Congress

/ hyperbole

Posted by RD">RD 2008-05-16 05:54|| 2008-05-16 05:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Think of the 6 billion as the 'toll' for getting Pakistan to allow us to supply our efforts in Afghanistan, because that's what it really is. It's cheaper than fighting our way through. And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-05-16 08:16|| 2008-05-16 08:16|| Front Page Top

#4 The $6B went for a very, very good cause. At the beginning, Pakistan was a loose confederation with no central government control even in Islamabad. The military and ISI were full of Islamists, and too weak to do anything but make trouble in Kashmir and sponsor terrorism. Oh, yes, and they had nuclear weapons.

Today, most of the country can be dominated by the military, the more secular ruling parties have displaced a lot of the Islamists from their parliament, the military and ISI have been purged of the worst of their Islamists, and the US has guarantees about their nuclear weapons.

While there has been no clear victory over the radicals, they have been severely damaged, their ancient weapons markets have to a great extent been closed down or reduced to a dull roar, and the majority of the population has been turned against them.

We actually got good value for our money.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-05-16 09:23|| 2008-05-16 09:23|| Front Page Top

#5 It's one hell of a waste of $6 billion. For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset. The death of a few million Muzz would have been a very worthwhile demonstration of our resolve. Slapping the shit out of them is the only effective means of getting their attention. Nowhere better to cause a little D&D than Pakland. (Mebbe Saoodi) Irradiating the territory would have denied them use of safe haven for years to come. That's how we should have spent precious tax dollars.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-05-16 11:41|| 2008-05-16 11:41|| Front Page Top

#6 Set one off and simply deny it.

Works for everyone else, why not us.

Posted by Oscar Flomoger2508 2008-05-16 12:20|| 2008-05-16 12:20|| Front Page Top

#7 Pakistan are funded by the West re WOT and Saudi re Islamism-They need to choose one over the other going forward as i see the West cutting backing their funding re WOT-ie lack of results and Islamism does not improve the economy unless you have oil!!!!!

Posted by Paul 2008-05-16 13:11|| 2008-05-16 13:11|| Front Page Top

#8 For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset.

I hear the Pentagon is short of military geniuses; send 'em yer resume. You'd be a shoo-in.

Posted by Pappy 2008-05-16 13:29|| 2008-05-16 13:29|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm designing a kevlar upholstered, mine-resistant, all-terrain, air-droppable armchair. I see a market - a huge market.

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-16 16:37|| 2008-05-16 16:37|| Front Page Top

#10 With a chenille slipcover for cuddly comfort, George? And a nice Laz-y-boy lean so one can watch the news on television properly: through closed eye lids?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-05-16 17:45|| 2008-05-16 17:45|| Front Page Top

#11 And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan.

US aid to India for 2008 is 81 million dollars.

Posted by john frum 2008-05-16 19:38|| 2008-05-16 19:38|| Front Page Top

#12 That is only counting direct aid : India is allowed to buy weapons and equipment that Pakistan can only dream of. Like the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the Indians are looking to buy for the Air Force and maybe another 75 or so for their Navy to outfit their carrier.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-16 19:43|| 2008-05-16 19:43|| Front Page Top

#13 With a chenille slipcover for cuddly comfort, George?

In digital camouflage, tw....

Posted by Pappy 2008-05-16 23:18|| 2008-05-16 23:18|| Front Page Top

#14 We're paying this money so we don't have to spend even more billions air shipping this stuff through the Central Asian countries. Alternatively, we're paying it so that we don't have to spend hundreds of billions invading Pakistan to get that land route through to Afghanistan. This is stuff that the Democrats know. But standard Democratic practice is to assume stuff merely materializes out of thin air and doesn't have to be paid for.

We could have invaded Pakistan after 9/11 and taken out the jihadi-tolerating/supporting government. But then we would have had to institute a draft, and prepare for a war against both Pakistan and China, which would probably have sent millions of "volunteers" to help the Pakistanis resist "American aggression". How many Americans were prepared to go to war with China, post-9/11? I know losing 4,000 men in Iraq has already consigned Bush to being "the worst president in American history" in the American psyche.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2008-05-16 23:38|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-05-16 23:38|| Front Page Top

23:38 Zhang Fei
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 Frank G
23:18 Pappy
23:13 Jan from work
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:37 Shieldwolf
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:20 Spike Uniter
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:04 Spike Uniter
21:57 phil_b
21:56 Old Patriot
21:41 JosephMendiola
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:36 JosephMendiola
21:33 JosephMendiola
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:23 Frank G
21:21 OldSpook
Merry-Go-Blog