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.

That's really the key question.

What can they do for us?

I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.

They would invade us of course .

That is an interesting question however, what would happen if the US just stopped all aid.

Funnel the money to our inner issues and not the world

 Jihadin wrote:
Funnel the money to our inner issues and not the world

Become ever more insular and then wonder why everyone is speaking Chinese. Its an option I suppose.

Not our problem

Why is that bad? It beats endless war.

More Chinese buffet

Aaaaand I hate humanity....

Pakistani Woman Stoned to Death was Pregnant

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But.... It's a "Religion of Peace" ...?!

It's almost as if different people interpret and express their religious beliefs in different ways.

 cincydooley wrote:
That's really the key question.

What can they do for us?

I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.

I think they grow a lot of "Medicinal weed" and Poppy

 cincydooley wrote:
That's really the key question.

What can they do for us?

I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.

Foreign aid is used to buy political influence. A fair amount is also funneled into programs constructed by companies from the giving country. I think cincy ,it isn't as one sided as you think

I am certain the world would react if the US didn't help in some disaster in Algeria - the rest of us would use that opportunity to buy influence. You really don't think all this money comes with no strings attached do you?

Perhaps you have wondered why the US is allowed to run around invading countries with impunity? The answer my friend is foreign aid.

The answer my friend is foreign aid.

Also the answer to why so many countries let us drone strike their own territory with impunity with only a "that's so rude" in response. If we weren't giving so much aid to Pakistan, they'd have a much bigger problem with us invading them every other month, not to mention our aid is propping up a government more friendly to our interests than the one that would likely appear if we stopped, which isn't just a big deal for us but for India as well. Keeping Pakistan the way it is isn't ideal for the people in Pakistan but its very clearly better than the alternatives that are realistically possible.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But.... It's a "Religion of Peace" ...?!

Like any religion, there are factions.

The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.

Here's a paper you can read -

http://faith-matters.org/images/stories/fm-publications/the-tanzimat-final-web.pdf

Here's an extract;

Putting aside the Hadd (Islamic punishments) was not wholly unprecedented for the
Ottomans. In fact, the Hadd punishment for stealing had been suspended before by the 2nd
Caliph (leader) of Islam Umar ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh):
The decision of `Umar ibn al-Khattab to suspend the hadd penalty (a penalty
prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah) of amputating a thief’s hand during
a time of famine is an example of istihsan (juristic preference). Here the law
was suspended as an exceptional measure in an exceptional situation.
Istihsan is considered a method of seeking facility and ease in legal
injunctions and is in accord with Qur’an 2:185. This suggests that the
Companions were not merely literalists. On the contrary, their rulings were
often based on their understanding of the spirit and purpose of the Shari`ah.12
The Ottoman Sultans considered their decision to set aside the Hadd punishments to be in
the best interest of their subjects and a way to meet the challenges they were facing. For
example, ‘During the Ottoman administration of the Arabian Peninsula, the Hadd
punishments were not applied’13. It was only after Arabia became independent, and was
ruled by the Saudi Royal family, that the Hadd punishments put into force.

The duty of providing legal edicts all across the Ottoman Empire fell to the Shaykh ul Islam;
a system which had existed for over 500 years. The putting aside of Hadd punishments for
the benefit and in the interest of the people (Maslaha) was accepted by the Shaykh ul Islam
as being in accordance with Islamic theological reasoning......

Little known fact; Sodomy was decriminalised by the ottomans in 1858. Did you know that some US states still have sodomy laws?

 44Ronin wrote:


The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.

The first great irony of the 21st Century

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.

The first great irony of the 21st Century

No irony; It's an intentional strategy to keep cultures backwards, also to keep people in the dark about the history of Islam.

 LordofHats wrote:
Keeping Pakistan the way it is isn't ideal for the people in Pakistan but its very clearly better than the alternatives that are realistically possible.

I think the US needs to stop believing this "helping countries" mantra , it's fine when this kind of stuff is said in diplomatic circles but to believe it?
Let's face it countries do things to benefit themselves or to foil other countries, no one does things on an international scale because of philanthropic ideas. This is Real Politik , not fairyland.

Bullockist wrote:
This is Real Politik , not fairyland.

I'm talking about real politik. Unsupported, Pakistan becomes Taliban Afghanistan 2.0, which is an obvious threat to us and the stability the region. Just because something doesn't immediately effect you doesn't mean its not going to kick you in the nuts years later, or even decades (the Saudi's have been such a beneficial long term ally, what with the whole Whabi thing).

Fairy land is only supporting countries that agree with our ideology. It's not about helping them its about helping ourselves and our interests. If anything we're too short sighted internationally as it is (Al Qaeda, essentially being a beast of our own creation, being a perfect example). We don't need to be more so. US foreign policy needs to be reworked, but if anything we need to take a more active and receptive stance to other nations, not one that is less so.

Isolationism is always an option, but I find that a shot sighted outlook that leaves us vulnerable. it worked for us before because there was no one with any interest in our limited economic and political position. Things aren't going to that way going further into the 21st century.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that this isn't about whether or not we should 'help' other nations, but rather its about how and when we help them. Right now we're not going about it the right way, but that's because we're allowing ourselves to be overly judgemental about what should be more practical and pragmatic decisions.

This story plumbs new depths with each revalation. Now the husband in the story admits to killing his first wife so he could marry his second one.
Somewhere in this country, there have to be some good people because if there weren't, I imagine it would have been a modern day Sodom ending played out in front of us for Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/world/meast/pakistani-honor-killing/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

What a bunch of fething animals.

Relapse wrote:
Somewhere in this country, there have to be some good people because if there weren't, I imagine it would have been a modern day Sodom ending played out in front of us for Pakistan.

Or there is no God .
Anyway, if people wonder if every Pakistanis are religious nutjobs, I am going to leave this here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CmSrLKwZE4

Damn, those are some eyebrows right there! Oscar the Grouch would be proud.

I'm just going to ignore the really stupid bigoted nonsense, just to make a simple point on foreign aid. Lots of people get really confused about the last part of the name - 'aid'. They assume that it means that because it is called 'aid' it is money being purely out of charity, because we love being kind to foreigners. But aid is actually very specifically directed, and always comes with a purpose attached. Most often aid is for development, but what people don't get is that it is all about directing the development of that country towards something we'd much prefer to have in the world. We fund schools in these countries because we'd much rather have the next generation to be more educated, as they will be easier to get along with and better trading partners, for instance.

Jebus we're still linked with them till after 2016 if we continue to use Karachi. Now I am really hoping the SOFA agreement goes south end of this year

Wow where the heck where the authorities when this happened!?
Seriously they should all have taste of their own medicine for what they did to the poor woman

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Aaaaand I hate humanity....

Pakistani Woman Stoned to Death was Pregnant

What a sad, disturbing story.

 44Ronin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.

The first great irony of the 21st Century

No irony; It's an intentional strategy to keep cultures backwards, also to keep people in the dark about the history of Islam.

What you mean the history where the middle-east was technologically and scientifically superior to the entire world for A LONG time, untill some scumbag theologist started calling science the work of the devil and the entire thing went to gak? Why would you keep people in the dark about a history that paints them as gullible idiots?

 Soladrin wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.

The first great irony of the 21st Century

No irony; It's an intentional strategy to keep cultures backwards, also to keep people in the dark about the history of Islam.

What you mean the history where the middle-east was technologically and scientifically superior to the entire world for A LONG time, untill some scumbag theologist started calling science the work of the devil and the entire thing went to gak? Why would you keep people in the dark about a history that paints them as gullible idiots?

Pakistan is not the Middle East, is it?

I have never been happier living in Sweden.

Seriously, what's going on down there is like a horror story.

Pakistan is not the Middle East, is it?

Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no. But you can't really talk about Pakistan without talking about the Middle East, so getting annoyed every time someone mentions the Middle East in reference to Pakistan is as bizarre as getting annoyed every time someone mentions Europe in reference to Turkey.

 LordofHats wrote:

Pakistan is not the Middle East, is it?

Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no. But you can't really talk about Pakistan without talking about the Middle East, so getting annoyed every time someone mentions the Middle East in reference to Pakistan is as bizarre as getting annoyed every time someone mentions Europe in reference to Turkey.

Because you're using such a huge fething brush to talk about the "middle east" that you're slopping paint on other countries.

Know what the hell you're talking about or just sit this one out and let the grown ups talk.