We pay, they don't play...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, May 21, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    For some time now, $5.6 billion worth of time, the US has been paying Pakistan some $1 billion annually in "coalition support funds". This is to reimburse Pakistan for the costs incurred for conducting counter-terrorism operations along the border with Afghanistan.

    The problem is this...For the last eight months, or so, Pakistan hasn't so much been doing any anti-terrorism, especially in areas where al Qaeda and the Taliban are active. US military commanders ON THE GROUND in Afghanistan have suggested that these payments be tied to Pakistani performance, especially since the Pakistani military often ignores Taliban fighters crossing the border and ignores calls to intercept Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as they flee back into Pakistan.

    But the suggestions of the US military commanders are falling on deaf ears at the White House. Big surprise that. The White House contends that any cuts to the payments would only further destabilize Pervez Musharaff's government. And we're worried about Iran getting nukes why? Seems the greatest opportunity for radical Muslims to get ahold of nukes is for them to over-throw Musharaff. But that very real possibility doesn't seem to be generating as much attention as the nascent nuclear program in Iran that has all the neo-cons in the administration atwitter.

    But then, this administration, since it first came to office, has been loathe to pay attention to the real threats and content to attend to the ones they've made up and/or inflated beyond reason.

    For the full story, go here:

    <center><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print>U.S. Pays Pakistan to Fight Terror, but Patrols Ebb</a></center>
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    You care what military commanders want in Afghanistan but not Iraq?
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Meaning no disrespect Gunny, but from the earliest stages of th invasion and occupation of Iraq, it is apparent the Bush listened to no one but the voices in his head. General Shinseki was forced into retirement because he dared suggest the invasion and occupation could not be done on the cheap, as the Administration wanted.

    Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.) and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) are both publicly repudiating Bush's strategy or, more appropriately, lack thereof regarding Iraq. Other retired generals from the National Security Network in Washington have also taken Bush to task for his policies in Iraq. And that is only the public face of the military's frustration with this administration and its policies. The the behind the scenes frustration is no less in its magnitude.

    The fact of the matter is that Bush and his administration have never listened to the commanders on the ground. The troops Bush claims to support are little more than props for his photo ops and they continue to die in iraq as a salve to his ego
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233

    Did Bush care what the military leaders in Iraq wanted?

    No he fired them when he didnt like what they said they would need to win.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Provide some evidence of this claim.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    What are you? The abridged edition bullypulpit echo?
     
  7. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    This has been heavily reported in every credible media venue available at this time, rgs.


    What are you reading and what are you listening to?
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    No it has not. So your "proof" is " We all know it where I live", got ya.
     
  9. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    You gotta get off the juice, man, and answer straight out loud.


    Or are you just smokin'?
     
  10. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    evidence is NOT, everybody knows, or what are you smoking or any other personal attacks.

    If you cant make your point without name calling you suck, that goes for anyone and everyone who engages in it on this board.
     

Share This Page