US Senators Penalize Pakistan For Jailing CIA Helper.....

[MMC]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. senators scandalized by Pakistan's jailing of a doctor for helping the CIA track down Osama bin Laden voted on Thursday to cut aid to Islamabad by $33 million -- one million for each year in the doctor's sentence.

"It's arbitrary, but the hope is that Pakistan will realize we are serious," said Senator Richard Durbin after the unanimous 30-0 vote by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Senate Armed Services Committee later passed a measure that could lead to even deeper cuts in aid.

The Senate Appropriations Committee's action docking Pakistan's aid came after a subcommittee earlier in the week slashed assistance to Islamabad -- and warned it would withhold even more cash if Pakistan does not reopen supply routes for NATO soldiers in neighboring Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been one of the leading recipients of U.S. foreign aid in recent years. Even after the cuts voted this week it still would receive about $1 billion in fiscal 2013, if the full Senate and House of Representatives approve.....snip~

http://thepoliticalforums.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=17

Whaddya know.....looks like The Two Wings of the Same Bird are on the same page with Pakistan.

[wingrider]

I say cut all aid to Pakistan not just the 33 million but all of it.. let them fund themselves and quit spending tax payer dollars that way.

in fact cut all foeign aid to everyone.. screw em we need that money spent here in the states, not supporting some third world garbage dump.

[MMC]

I say cut all aid to Pakistan not just the 33 million but all of it.. let them fund themselves and quit spending tax payer dollars that way.

in fact cut all foeign aid to everyone.. screw em we need that money spent here in the states, not supporting some third world garbage dump.

I agree.....I say stop the whole 1 billion. Hiding Bin Laden, Closing NATO supply lines, killing Americans from their side of the border with their ISI Security Troops while assisting both the Afghan and Paki Talibans.

I mean other than declaring officially they are at War with us.....I don't see any reason to cater to these people whatsoever. We Should cut all dialogue off pull up our Embassy and get our people out of their Country. Let them sit there for a Quarter of the year wondering what our next move is.

[wingrider]

and not just pakistan.. but every city dump in the middle east.. and other parts of the world,, I am sick to death of paying taxes and having it squandered placating a bunch of assholes that hate our guts..

[RollingWave]

that's what they should do probably, though it is unlikely to be good for the US if a nuclear armed state implodes into anarchy and/or taken over by Islamic militia groups.

[MMC]

that's what they should do probably, though it is unlikely to be good for the US if a nuclear armed state implodes into anarchy and/or taken over by Islamic militia groups.

Not if they cause a nuke to explode over there on that side of the planet it isn't. As I doubt we would allow it to leave from that region.
So I would say the clean up and fallout is going to affect who? Though I am sure India wouldnt be to happy about it.

[Conley]

It's arbitrary, but the hope is that Pakistan will realize we are serious

It's arbitrary, so why would Pakistan take them seriously? Pakistan is already getting a billion dollars per year and has already collected billions. Do these pols think we're morons or are they that stupid themselves?

[MMC]

It's arbitrary, so why would Pakistan take them seriously? Pakistan is already getting a billion dollars per year and has already collected billions. Do these pols think we're morons or are they that stupid themselves?

Do you think they have taken us seriously at all? Why would Pakistan tell NATO we will stop your supplies due to your mistakes in bombing Taliban fighters and innocent civilians in an open theatre of engagement? Knowing that the Taliban would hide behind civilians.

[Conley]

Do you think they have taken us seriously at all? Why would Pakistan tell NATO we will stop your supplies due to your mistakes in bombing Taliban fighters and innocent civilians in an open theatre of engagement? Knowing that the Taliban would hide behind civilians.

Nope and we have given them no reason to take them seriously. We're like the guy showering the girl with expensive gifts while she sleeps with half the town...

[MMC]

Maybe we should strengthen those ties moreso with India. Start rubbing those elbows while treating the Pakis nonchalantly. My play would be to force the Pakis to commit to either an official declaration of war against us and the Rest of NATO. Or to STFU! Either Walk the walk. As there ain't gonna be no talk.

[roadmaster]

Nope and we have given them no reason to take them seriously. We're like the guy showering the girl with expensive gifts while she sleeps with half the town...

Exactly but he won't cut ties with them not while Obama has already pissed off China and Russia.

[wingrider]

Nope and we have given them no reason to take them seriously. We're like the guy showering the girl with expensive gifts while she sleeps with half the town...
totally on the mark.
great response CL

[roadmaster]

If I were Obama I would not visit the Middle East anytime soon. Got to admit the shoe thrown at Bush was funny but it would be more than a shoe for him.

[RollingWave]

Not if they cause a nuke to explode over there on that side of the planet it isn't. As I doubt we would allow it to leave from that region.
So I would say the clean up and fallout is going to affect who? Though I am sure India wouldnt be to happy about it.

well, you'd have to consider the worst case probability in this don't you? for example them sneaking a bomb in a ship into New York or something.. that is pretty hard to catch if they make serious plans. not to meantion making a ICBM these days isn't as hard as it use to be. not to meantion I'd think India would almost certainly see this as the signs that the gloves are off and go to war over Kashmir in the least and a fullblown invasion is hardly out of the question (remember that Pakistan was a part of India). and really with the world market these days fluctuations from a serious regional war like say India invading Pakistan would probably cause enough damage to stocks and insurance fees that already makes the aid money looks reasonable in comparison, let alone if the US / UN (and really the US will always be on tab for most of the UN operation anyway) need to go in and clean up the whole thing again.

Foreign affairs are almost always muddy to be sure, though I'd feel that few people would think the US's disengagement after WW1 had nothing to do with developement that lead to WW2. and I hardly think anyone would claim that the 20+ years in between was worth the cost the US paid in WW2, even regardless of the price everyone else paid.

FWIW, the general US engagement logic around the world seem to be one of the insurance concept, you rather keep paying some acceptable fees continously than risk being hit with an exceptionally costly fee sometime down the road.


I mean it's not in itself a terrible idea to stay out of the world's busneiss, but then you'd have to accept the risk and fact that the world will not be working in the direction of your benifit. and I'm pretty sure most of us here agree that America is much more a benifactor of the current world order than not.

[MMC]

well, you'd have to consider the worst case probability in this don't you? for example them sneaking a bomb in a ship into New York or something.. that is pretty hard to catch if they make serious plans. not to meantion making a ICBM these days isn't as hard as it use to be. not to meantion I'd think India would almost certainly see this as the signs that the gloves are off and go to war over Kashmir in the least and a fullblown invasion is hardly out of the question (remember that Pakistan was a part of India). and really with the world market these days fluctuations from a serious regional war like say India invading Pakistan would probably cause enough damage to stocks and insurance fees that already makes the aid money looks reasonable in comparison, let alone if the US / UN (and really the US will always be on tab for most of the UN operation anyway) need to go in and clean up the whole thing again.

Foreign affairs are almost always muddy to be sure, though I'd feel that few people would think the US's disengagement after WW1 had nothing to do with developement that lead to WW2. and I hardly think anyone would claim that the 20+ years in between was worth the cost the US paid in WW2, even regardless of the price everyone else paid.

FWIW, the general US engagement logic around the world seem to be one of the insurance concept, you rather keep paying some acceptable fees continously than risk being hit with an exceptionally costly fee sometime down the road.


I mean it's not in itself a terrible idea to stay out of the world's busneiss, but then you'd have to accept the risk and fact that the world will not be working in the direction of your benifit. and I'm pretty sure most of us here agree that America is much more a benifactor of the current world order than not.


Not at all RW.....They would have to keep their Nuke Device unhooked up. If they put anything together we will pickup the Signature. Whether it is in Briefcase or a ballistic missile. A Paperbag or even a Plastic one.

Foreign Affairs is muddy only because we allow it to be this way. There is no reason for us to treat Pakistan with Kid Gloves. Course if we had some sort of Foreign policy other than bringing that New Form of Democracy and giving into creating Infrastructure to the world. We might have a different story.

Seems Harsh words is all Pakistan can understand. Well it is time they start hearing them a little bit closer to their face.

I doubt the Pakis really want to piss us off. For then we can push India into that war with the Pakis. Which I am quite sure the Pakis wouldn't want us to back India. As They know after it is all done and over with. There will no longer be a Pakistan. Never let them misconstrue Kindness for Weakness.

Time for the US to make it clear to the Pakis. They kill one more American. Their azz is grass. Let them take that message home. Then lets See if the ISI wants to open their big mouths again. Which if they did.....I would give the CIA full reign to Terminate any of their Top Security Big Mouth Generals with Extreme Prejudice.

[RollingWave]

I find that accessment to be terribly optimistic MMC, and highly unlikly to be the US policy no matter who wins 2012 or in the future. as Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli said... war starts when you will, but will not end as you please.

[MMC]

I find that accessment to be terribly optimistic MMC, and highly unlikly to be the US policy no matter who wins 2012 or in the future. as Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli said... war starts when you will, but will not end as you please.

:laugh: Yeah optimistic is a nice way of putting it. There is no doubt that it won't be US Policy. I am talking shit RW.....we all know the US doesnt know what the hell they are doing with Pakistan. Other than playing it safe. With Democrats being in Office.....it is even more azz kissing than usual.

Little did Machiavelli know how Wars would be fought in the Future.....huh?


Memorial Day is coming round the corner for us RW.....so I'm just in a mood. I could release it all if I could just get my Hands on Karzai. :wink: Or some Paki ISI Security. Show him how secure he is with his training. :evil:

[RollingWave]

Well, equipment of wars change through the years but a lot of the basic concept doesn't, which is why Machivalle and Sun Tzu are still being studied by real military officers these days... for example, Sun Tzu said ... that the best course of action is to defeat the enemy's plans, the next west would be to dislodge his alliance (connections/ supporters), the one after that would be to go after his army, and the worst would be to attack his base directly. looks like someone didn't get that memo back in 01 and 03 ... though on the brighter side with the Drones attack nowadays at least they seem to be advance to the second worst option :grin:

No doubt Karzai's is just another tribal chieftan in (a very thin) vile of democracy, but to be fair, he may actually not be as bad the dudes the US were trying to prop up (harder than they're proping up Karzai) back in South Vietnam.

[MMC]

Well, equipment of wars change through the years but a lot of the basic concept doesn't, which is why Machivalle and Sun Tzu are still being studied by real military officers these days... for example, Sun Tzu said ... that the best course of action is to defeat the enemy's plans, the next west would be to dislodge his alliance (connections/ supporters), the one after that would be to go after his army, and the worst would be to attack his base directly. looks like someone didn't get that memo back in 01 and 03 ... though on the brighter side with the Drones attack nowadays at least they seem to be advance to the second worst option :grin:

No doubt Karzai's is just another tribal chieftan in (a very thin) vile of democracy, but to be fair, he may actually not be as bad the dudes the US were trying to prop up (harder than they're proping up Karzai) back in South Vietnam.

Your right as I recall the Democratically led Congress backed the Bush play, and you are correct Officers study Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. To bad politicians don't and can't get past the basic reading and understanding.

As far as I know Karzai is not a laison with the Iranians for us nor could he ever be trusted as such. What do you think Sun Tzu would say about one's ally entreating with ones enemy openly. Especially when that ally has it's dogs in the same fight?

[RollingWave]

In the days after 911 I don't think any sane polititican could have rejected Bush's plan, nor is it really fair to fault them for that now.

Difficult to say, I think the end of the problem is that the whole war on terror is very poorly defined to begin with, how do you really defeat terrorism? a concept ? seem to have been a fools errand to begin with and thus everything else after that is a catastrophy.

In Sun Tzu's term, it probably suggest defeating it's plan or connection first. the plan part is obviously rather abstract and difficult to pull off, mostly the US have done the relavent domestic stuff needed to protect itself form similar plans so that's a start (although the legality of some policy are more than a little debatable.....)

But the connection part is more realistic, where are it's money comming from? rich Saudi donors mostly, why are people making a shite load of money from the US donating money to attack it? surely those people are not completely insane nutjobs otherwise they wouldn't be in that position, surely there must be some more subtle way to go after it . Who's harboring them? the Talibans, I suppose attacking the Talibans was fairly invitable but staying was probably a mistake, it should have been more or less just a simple / quick show of force. do enough damage to let the Northern Alliance do whatever they want, and then just keep watch after that.

The US have more or less succeeded in limiting its funding and harborer over the last decade so you can't say they completely ignored those basic concepts, though probably didn't do it nearly as efficiently as they could have. the final problem of course is the rather broad perception in the Islamic world of a supposed Christianity threat on them (and vice versa) that is much much more problematic since it is tied into one of the deepest irrationality of mankind.... (religion that is)

[MMC]

Chapter 3 and 13 from Sun Tzu 's book applies to Alliances and Use of Spies and Assassins. Including those that can be used successfully for a purpose even though they are betraying and are a traitor to the cause. All warfare is based on Deception.