Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As much as Iran give them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Tell me what kind of infrastructure helps with that sort of flood so I can patent the idea and make a mint.

Houseboats.

Chortle...

National economies are a lot bigger than people realise. It's part of the reason that efforts to scare people over debt levels tends to use whole numbers and not percentages of

Maybe, but The U.S. is running at approximately 93% of annual GDP, ($13.258 Trillion). So as big of a number as $13 thousand billion sounds (world bank estimates that 2009 U.S. GDP was $14,256 thousand billion, or $14.256 trillion) we also have a national debt of $13,258 thousand billion.

Global GDP was $58 Trillion so the U.S National debt is about 23% of the Worlds GDP.

(is this right? it's pretty late here)

Not saying you are wrong, not even saying this should sway anybody either way. Just putting the numbers in perspective. When I saw 13 thousand billion, I didn't instantly translate that into trillions. I can wrap my head around that better.

Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.

As much as Iran give them.

How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.

sebster wrote:It's only on Dakka that you'd find people arguing that you shouldn't give a nation emergency relief for their own good. For feth's sake.

Heh.

mattyrm wrote:As much as Iran give them.

...Huh?

I think this amount should cover it nicely.


US$ - 0 -

So...you're planning on swapping it to Euro's? Good choice.

Of cvourse, forex forward and swaptions to a real currency: China's

wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?

If you want to get the general populace on our side then handing their government a big fat check isn't going to accomplish it. Most of them won't know about it and none of them will ever see the benefit. U.S. Marines handing out food, water, and medicine, rebuilding homes, roads, and infrastructure, that will win hearts and minds. That I'm all in favor of.

Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?

Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?

Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:wow, wasn't really expecting that, the majority seams to not care. Is this because it is Pakistan? What if it was some other country? Say Germany or Ireland, would your feelings be different?

Not particularly. Of course it doesn't hurt that members of Germany/Ireland's military/intelligence services aren't actively trying to kill Americans.

Yeah it's kind of what I'm feeling. How responsible is it for the U.S. government to be giving away so much money to anyone when we have a huge debt and plenty of projects of out own that could use this funding. I mean if we weren't willing to put the money in to fix the levies before Katrina, how can we justify just giving so much money away? We could probably use that money to shore up the borders, or help war vets or rebuild our aging infrastructure.

I'm from Cleveland (Cleveland jokes in 5.4.3.2.1) and I see good people that didn't overspend on their houses (seriously you can get a nice house here for nothing anyway) struggling everyday, there is a lot of working poor here. I've seen so many good projects here get shut down because of lack of funding. When I hear about the U.S. department of education hounding U.S. citizens for a few thousand dollars, and then giving hundreds of millions to complete strangers I wonder if our priorities aren't out of order?

Sure many of these projects could be seen as throwing good money after bad (if a city can't sustain itself, is spending money going to help), but what should be done with the money that the U.S government seams to need to give away. Should we pay off the debt? Invest in technology? I get the feeling America is a little lost.

But then again I think these people do need help. It's not really their fault they live in Pakistan. If we are willing to spend US$737 million for each stealth bomber, maybe that isn't too much money. If we can use the money at the same time to build some good will especially with Muslims, maybe we won't someday have to use the bomber (as an example,) to go over there and drop bombs.

Andrew1975 wrote:How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.

The US is the largest donor, but comes in pretty low in terms of donations as percentage of GDP.




Then you consider that a whole lot of US aid is actually military aid to Israel, and that figure can be discounted. Then again, if you factor in private donations the US goes up again - nowhere near enough to achieve parity but they shouldn't be diminished.

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that from the 70s almost every Western nation has been a signatory to a foreign development program that pledges .7% of GDP to foreign aid. Hardly anyone comes close to that target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Maybe, but The U.S. is running at approximately 93% of annual GDP, ($13.258 Trillion). So as big of a number as $13 thousand billion sounds (world bank estimates that 2009 U.S. GDP was $14,256 thousand billion, or $14.256 trillion) we also have a national debt of $13,258 thousand billion.

Global GDP was $58 Trillion so the U.S National debt is about 23% of the Worlds GDP.

(is this right? it's pretty late here)

Yeah, that's right. And I certainly didn't want to imply US debt isn't an issue, it is a big issue and there needs to be long term commitments to bringing the deficit under control. Good luck with that

Not saying you are wrong, not even saying this should sway anybody either way. Just putting the numbers in perspective. When I saw 13 thousand billion, I didn't instantly translate that into trillions. I can wrap my head around that better.

Yeah, I find 'trillion' can sometimes be left as just a number, if you know what I mean. A GDP of 13 trillion is just something economists say, people can accept it without realising the actual scale of what's being mentioned. People get what a billion is, though, so saying the US economy generates 13 thousand billion dollars a year gives, in my opinion, a better understanding of the scale of the economy.

Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.

As much as Iran give them.

How do people feel about that also? The U.S. seams to provide a disproportionate amount of aid around the world (to friend and foe alike). However the U.S also appears to have a disproportionate amount of the worlds money to donate.

Yeah it's kind of what I'm feeling. How responsible is it for the U.S. government to be giving away so much money to anyone when we have a huge debt and plenty of projects of out own that could use this funding. I mean if we weren't willing to put the money in to fix the levies before Katrina, how can we justify just giving so much money away?

THE LEVIES WEREN'T BROKEN BEFORE KATRINA.

Shurma wrote THE LEVIES WEREN'T BROKEN BEFORE KATRINA

.

Shurma, it's well known that the levies were in a sate of disrepair and were a great concern to the people of New Orleans years before Katrina even hit. They were regularly experiencing floods years before Katrina because of the poor levies. Lack of funding caused only the major levies to be reinforced, (not repaired) to what was considered an acceptable level to handle normal conditions, but would break under any real strain.

You will probably come back and blame the people for living in a swamp under sea level, but this has nothing to do with that.

How about not going off half cocked. Really do a little research, your infront of a computer anyway!

The full slow thing was funny when I was exaggerating to make a point. Here I'll just ask you to follow rule 1 as we know frazzled is watching.

Your lack of insight before calling me a slow makes jesus facepalm

Andrew1975 wrote:
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.

Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.

Regardless, I don't have a problem giving Pakistan money. Foreign aid is one the best, and cheapest ways to accomplish American foreign policy goals.

Can we lay off the slow and face palming please. Ta.

Andrew1975 wrote:
On an interesting side note how should we deliver this aid, when the U.S. had the military deliver aid in 2004 and 2005 it drastically improved our image to the victims versus just letting the local authorities carry out distribution.
.

The Pakistani authority has also requested two U.S. water filtration units, which are essential to provide fresh water and prevent disease outbreaks. The units provide pumping, purification, storage and distribution. Each unit can meet daily water requirements of up to 10,000 people.

The United States has begun delivering more than 189,000 halal meals from U.S. supply depots in the South Asia region on 10 separate flights. “The meals are being delivered to Pakistan’s military for distribution in flood-stricken areas,” the embassy said. “Food and water also has been ferried to people still not able to leave the flood areas.”

On July 31, a U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo plane delivered international assistance to Islamabad that included nearly 8,000 halal meals. Early on August 1, an Air Force C-17 cargo jet delivered more than 44,000 more halal meals.

The U.S. embassy said another 62,000 halal meals were scheduled for delivery by Air Force transport on August 1 and over the next few days. The relief flights were coming in to the Pakistan Air Force Base at Chaklala, Rawalpindi.

The United States is sending 12 prefabricated steel bridges that can be used to temporarily replace highway bridges damaged by flooding in Peshawar and Kurram Agency. The provincial government and Pakistan’s military are coordinating their efforts for use of the bridges, the embassy said.

U.S. helicopters were used to deliver more than 11,873 pounds of rations and supplies to flood victims. On August 1 alone the helicopters rescued 165 people and ferried another nine to a hospital in Nowshera.

http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/August/20100802132921dmslahrellek0.5935785.html

dogma wrote:

Sebster wrote:
Does anybody know how much aid the U.S gives Pakistan on a yearly basis divided into military and non-military aid? I can't find reliable sources for this, one place says this another says this. Just curious. It might help the discussion.

Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.

Regardless, I don't have a problem giving Pakistan money. Foreign aid is one the best, and cheapest ways to accomplish American foreign policy goals.

That was Andrew's question, not mine. Could you change the quote? Thanks.

And yes, foreign aid is pennies compared to everything else. That said, the aid given to Pakistan, given straight to government, is exactly the kind of aid that tends to get lost in bureaucracy and never reach the people, but it isn't really for that. It's to keep their government on-side.

I agree with fraz, feth Pakistan.

Id help an ally out. But screw those guys. I also like how when none Islamic nations are affected by natural disasters the mullahs and ayatollahs love to shout out about how its god punishing them for homosexuals or whatever.

Not only do not care at all, I actually was quite happy to see a disaster occur in a Muslim nation, now they might lay off the Allah rhetoric a tad next Time a civilised country is unfortunate enough to suffer from a natural disaster.

Your avatar describes your post, mattrym.

mattyrm wrote:

Id help an ally out.

Pakistan is our ally.

If you are actually asking me, give them everything. Or something proportionate to the scale of the issue, directed in the best way to provide aid to individuals effected by the floods.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129256081

That link is great and well worth the listen.

I think we should finish rebuilding New Orleans and provide all the people there with aid before we decide to move on to another aid effort.

If we can't do the job right in our own country what makes us think we can do it half way around the world?

Sections of New Orleans still look like Pakistan or some other 3rd world country. Oh right, we fixed the tourist districts, the rest is too black and too poor to bother with...

Really ? Good grief, poor sods.

I guess the economy isn't helping in that regards.

reds8n wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Id help an ally out.

Pakistan is our ally.

How long have i posted on here red? Your well aware of my background and the fact that i am in no way ignorant of the complex issues that are bogging us down in the middle east, and nobody who has a brain and reads the news daily is unaware of the situation at the moment. Since long before Benazir Bhutto we have all beem bombarded with information about Pakistan, so much so that im tired of reading about the bloody place. Im a Telegraph reader amongst other things, and they have been writing about the place almost daily long before the floods.

But anyway, Im well aware that Pakistan is seen as an "ally" (i use the term loosely) of ours in the war on terror. But lets be realistic, its common knowledge that they playing politics and claiming to assist us while they are actively exporting terror, Mr Cameron mentioned this obvious fact only the week before last, and what do they all do? Yes thats right, its burning flags and effigy time, joy of joys! (Where the feth do they get all the American and British flags from anyway!?)

That so called alliance is built on straw.

In my opinion we should spend a small amount of money on the people of Pakistan, maybe 25% what we are sending now? Im tired of us funding nations that (generally speaking) hate us.

We should then follow this up by engaging in a rigorous psyops campaign (spend the other 50% on putting friendly leaflets in all the food we send, and offer financial rewards for assistance against extremists, information onTaliban members, headquarters, leaders etc...) to let the people know that the US/UK are "helping" them, even though we arent spending as much as we could be, and then save the last of the money for more bombs and gear for Afghanistan. We already pay our fair share
Smart eh?

Hows that for a plan?

Im a Telegraph reader

My deepest sympathies, you can beat this terrible problem however, fret not. We'll all be here for you.

Except on weekends. And if it gets a bit busy, obviously.

I hardly think Pakistan is alone with regards to "playing politics" with regards to their behaviour in the area are they ?

I share your bewilderment about the flag procurement. I think there's an obvious market that we could be tapping into here. Take that trade deficit !

I pretty much concur with the "psyops" plan, I was under the impression though that much of the aid sent already did contain "leaflets" and the like... thinking about it though I have next to no idea where I got this idea from...

...

How long have i posted on here red?

.. too long ?




I agree there's issues to do with exactly what Pakistan "brings to the table", so to speak and there is no doubt that there's sizable numbers of people of there who are "the enemy". But there's a lot who aren't and they are the ones who would suffer if we didn't help them.

Plus I would suggest that whilst the situation is bad already, it would be far worse if Pakistan was totally or actively "working" against us.

That said, if someone was to help us out and do something to their Cricket team that's be cool

Aye they do put leaflets in, i was giving out them big yellow MREs that the Americans make in Iraq and they had bits of paper in them saying "Given by the American People" or something on them, but i think we can turn it up a few notches and turn this disaster into a goal for the coalition if we play our cards right..

Dont get me wrong.. i mean, im a bastard, but im not indifferent to human suffering. I just think that theres a war on, and i want us to win it.

,,MRE ? Is that the ration packs ?

i mean, im a bastard, but im not indifferent to human suffering

.. See ? He's a big softie really !

I agree, crass as this may sound, that events like this should also be seen as an oppurtunity to use to our advantage.

And it is a BIG flood too : http://howbigreally.com/

Aye, meal ready to eat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal,_Ready-to-Eat

They give yellow ones out for aid, they looked identical in Iraq but they obviously make em all meat free.

And yes, its a mans flood, as big as Italy apparently!

Since 9/11 they have received about 11.7 billions dollars, but by year's end that number could hit 13 billion.

Holy crap! And that is just one country. No wonder our aging infrastructure is being ignored. Not saying that's the only reason...but still that's a lot of money that could be going to education or repairing bridges or research.

I've been listing to the arguments and while I believe aid is just being neighborly. It seams like in some cases we create a situation where the U.S. is in some way creating these situations by not letting outer countries be held responsible for lack of planning. If Pakistan's population is so out of control that they create situations where the flooding is magnified (such as deforestation) I mean i hate to sound heartless, but maybe the heard needs culling (not a racist remark)

If we are neglecting our own infrastructure to build theirs, are we not setting ourselves up for a fall. Who will bail us out when our bridges are collapsing (this has happened).

Why is money so readily availability for this, but not other things like financial aid for students or many other (Don't want to say more important, maybe self serving) things? I mean granted you have to pay the military anyway so you might as well have them doing something....maybe that is part of it.

Still heart strings are heart strings, and I believe in two birds with one stone. If we can help great! If by helping we can build greater support in a hostile environment (yes they are an ally, but lets not kid ourselves) well that's just icing on the cake.

Don't know, still on the fence with this one. I know everyone (except GW) has been hit by this economy. Maybe the U.S. has to look at every aspect and see what is going on. When you look at the numbers our aid is really an insignificant amount of the U.S. GDP. It's not as easy as saying we are giving Pakistan our infrastructure. Sometimes it just seams like it.

Another thought is that maybe we should focus more on giving fishing poles instead of fish if you get my point. Not as instantly gratifying, but better in the long run. It could be said though that the U.S. enjoys these opportunities to play hero.....but what are the costs?

Sorry if it looks like I am being contradictory or answering my own questions. I'm just really on the fence....I hate to be on the fence.

imo we ought to give them nothing. if they didnt have papa bear us around to save their bacon all the time they might act a little bit more responsibly.... like.... idk.... taking disaster planning seriously.

I wonder how much Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, or any of the Islamic nations are giving in aid.

Whatever aid we do give should be distributed directly to the people via reputable organizations. Any money that goes to the government will end up in somebody's personal account instead of helping the poor SOB's on the ground.