Only if...

Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#1
The US pledged to give more aid to Pakistan, on the condition that it physically takes more action against the Taliban.

Some politicians see the potential aid as a stimulus for their actions in combatting the Taliban, thus not having to spend any more of their own money on it.

However, others see it as an unacceptable intrusion. They view the aid as giving the US too much control over the country and, thereby, a threat to sovereignty.
 
Jul 2009
5,844
449
Port St. Lucie
#2
Aid tends to walk away. They may be an ally but an invasion must be considered. Taliban with nukes filled with people who think dyeing in nuclear glory will result in an eternal orgy with 72 extremely hot virgins in paradise... Not good. :eek:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#3
Aid tends to walk away. They may be an ally but an invasion must be considered. Taliban with nukes filled with people who think dyeing in nuclear glory will result in an eternal orgy with 72 extremely hot virgins in paradise... Not good. :eek:
That's the trouble with religion.

Completely unreasonable and physically impossible promises to bend people to a racist agenda.

If they put a touch more effort in holding their borders with Afghanistan, it would already go a long way. Attack usually isn't the best form of defence - merely the best form of provoking subsequent retaliatory attack.

Though i think they should secure Waziristan. It's territory of Pakistan. They could always be different, though, and attempt diplomacy.
 
Jul 2009
5,844
449
Port St. Lucie
#4
That's the trouble with religion.

Completely unreasonable and physically impossible promises to bend people to a racist agenda.

If they put a touch more effort in holding their borders with Afghanistan, it would already go a long way. Attack usually isn't the best form of defence - merely the best form of provoking subsequent retaliatory attack.

Though i think they should secure Waziristan. It's territory of Pakistan. They could always be different, though, and attempt diplomacy.
Last time they tried diplomacy, the Taliban got to within 60 miles of the capital before the army/militia stopped the Taliban advance.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#5
Last time they tried diplomacy, the Taliban got to within 60 miles of the capital before the army/militia stopped the Taliban advance.
What i mean is, keep fighting, secure the borders, and suggest talks.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#7
The aid is more than "aid", there is a psychological dimension of giving hope to the people of Pakistan in their objective to get rid of the Taliban. I have a number of friends from Pakistan who say that the United States have been very successful in assisting Pakistan to get rid of people who want to make war. They are very confident that very soon Pakistan will be completely rid of the Taliban.

I think there are all kinds of trade deals that we do not know about. Such as Pakistan actually exporting oil to the United States for example. For a country as poor as Pakistan, every US Dollar counts and go a long way.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#9
Ya, everything is going as obama planed
I don't see the United States as broke. As long as it has its citizens underwriting bail-out packages such as the beginning of the year, which in essence means that the citizens have confidence that the Government will bail the country out, the United States is still OK. All I wish for however, is that it stops spending so much money. Surely if there is a problem with the economy, Government should buckle in a little?
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#10
Ya, everything is going as obama planed
Obama wasn't planning the downfall of the USA. :rolleyes:

Surely if there is a problem with the economy, Government should buckle in a little?
Well, Keynesianism is an accepted and established technique for getting out of economic dire straits. The theory is that the Government picks up the slack from the lack of investors and pays with public money. We can't know how well it's done - unless we can somehow glimpse an alternate universe where there had been no bail outs. But as it's accepted economic practice, it's unlikely they're suddenly going to change tack.

Besides, Obama doesn't give a rat's arse about how much you pay in tax. He only wants to get out of recession to boost his poll ratings. And this is the tried-and-tested way of doing so.

I realise you know all this. But i think that the best kind of post is one that affirms that which you already know or suspect. ;)
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#11
I realise you know all this. But i think that the best kind of post is one that affirms that which you already know or suspect. ;)
Well I would have thought I would have affirmed the obvious. His spending programmes obviously did not have the required results. Better for Obama and Government to stay out of managing the economy and leave that for the economists.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#12
Well I would have thought I would have affirmed the obvious. His spending programmes obviously did not have the required results. Better for Obama and Government to stay out of managing the economy and leave that for the economists.
Economists usually know the least about the economy. :rolleyes:

I remember quite a few people predicted the housing bubble would burst - in fact, they were surprised it hadn't yet. But to economists, it took them completely unawares. Cue indignant cries of "how would you expect us to predict something like this?!"

Remember, it was initially Bush's spending programmes. It was also Angela merkel's, Gordon Brown's and Nikolas Sarkozy's. In fact, just about every Western nation took part.

You say that the spending policy was proven wrong by the US's current economic state. But in Germany, it is accepted opinion that the spending policy was proven right by Germany's current economic state (it's now steadily emerging from recession).

Besides, Keynesian principles have been the accepted practice, since they were used to solve the 1929 crash.

(I should note, this doesn't mean i approve of them).
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#14
Economists usually know the least about the economy. :rolleyes:
Could be true, but then perhaps economists do give advice, and Government does not listen to it, or meddles with it to everyone's detriment. I'm almost certain that economists would have warned Government long in advance of the crisis last September what was going to happen. Go to any company or organization and the first guys to "spoil the fun" are usually the accountants.