U.S increasing aid to Afghanistan & Pakistan...good?

[UpSideDownDesi]

So this wed President Obama will be meeting with Afghanistan’s' and Pakistans' presidents to make them "full partners" and Aid them with more support ($15 Billion over 10 years) to strengthen their economy. As most know (or maybe not) gov in both countries are corrupt from head to toe. Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan and making progress in Pakistan (60 miles from Capital and holding ground). Am I the only one who thinks that the money should stay where it is when Afghani President Karzai is electing a local warlord to be vice president, "Karzai further angered U.S. officials this week when he named Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a powerful warlord accused of violating human rights, as his vice presidential running mate." Then Pakistani president is talking to U.S officials to support him strengthen his economy, but asks for "more support, I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement." Pakistan then declines that it didn't use $10 billion given to it over past ten years to build his military arsenal to 1 up neighboring India (which both countries always try to do). Is it me or something doesn't add up. U.S has the right idea, but wrong solution. Money given to both countries will more than likely end up where it doesn’t need to and I can see economies of both countries staying exactly where they are or getting worse over time, like it has been over last few years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...kes/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...tan/index.html

I'll add more later, what do you y'all think?

[SL65AMG]

he is more worried about other peoples economy then he is about ours.... fuck him

[mocha latte cupcake]

sure, i can see helping the enemy and giving corrupt people who have a record for backstabbing and underminding people a good thing. maybe from the enemies stand point. obama simply proves his "world helpful change" is simply more fail from his magical mouth filled with poison laced words

[BanginJimmy]

good for Asscrackistan, bad for Penistan

[UpSideDownDesi]

I simply don't see how giving them money is magically fix their economy in few years, which has been on downfall since 90's, going Anti U.S as everyday goes by, and has policies to where a terrorist group has rights in their country (??). Instead I’d rather have them spend that money and needling out those Taliban’s out of the area themselves.

[NAMNORI]

but you also have to remember that Obama doesn't see them as terrorists.(they have some stupid new term for the fuckers) Either way we're fucked until his term is up. Everyone needs to remember that the tea parties aren't just a way to speak up now but a rallying cry for when the voting machines start up again. Giving money to our enemies is just going to fuck us even more. Sorry but if you don't like this country get the fuck out unless you have plans on changing it for the good of our country and not just for your good. Obama is more worried about what is best for him and his buddies that want to weaken this country to the point that a sneeze could make us fall. For fucks sake why did the majority of the american public vote this fucking tool into office???????? Fucking dumbasses!

[preferredduck]

So this wed President Obama will be meeting with Afghanistan’s' and Pakistans' presidents to make them "full partners" and Aid them with more support ($15 Billion over 10 years) to strengthen their economy. As most know (or maybe not) gov in both countries are corrupt from head to toe. Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan and making progress in Pakistan (60 miles from Capital and holding ground). Am I the only one who thinks that the money should stay where it is when Afghani President Karzai is electing a local warlord to be vice president, "Karzai further angered U.S. officials this week when he named Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a powerful warlord accused of violating human rights, as his vice presidential running mate." Then Pakistani president is talking to U.S officials to support him strengthen his economy, but asks for "more support, I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement." Pakistan then declines that it didn't use $10 billion given to it over past ten years to build his military arsenal to 1 up neighboring India (which both countries always try to do). Is it me or something doesn't add up. U.S has the right idea, but wrong solution. Money given to both countries will more than likely end up where it doesn’t need to and I can see economies of both countries staying exactly where they are or getting worse over time, like it has been over last few years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...kes/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...tan/index.html

I'll add more later, what do you y'all think?

wow they are not the only corrupt gov't in the world, look at our own, we are just as bad at the top. instead of giving them money shouldn't we the people get some.

[Bigt8aford]

^^agreed, i just dont see any country geting better anytime soon... even our own

[Total_Blender]

Sorry but if you don't like this country get the fuck out

For fucks sake why did the majority of the american public vote this fucking tool into office???????? Fucking dumbasses!

Ever consider taking your own advice?

This is not a new strategy for what its worth... it was done in Europe after WWII (the Marshall Plan). Hell, in Europe we spent 9 billion between 1945 and 1947 and that was before the Marshall Plan. Once the Marshall Plan was passed it added an additional 12 billion over 4 years.

Theres also the fact that the Taliban are getting more control in Pakistan. Helping the Pakastani's fight the Taliban and keep the Taliban from getting the nukes is pretty damn important.

[BanginJimmy]

and keep the Taliban from getting the nukes is pretty damn important.

This is one of those few cases that I think we need to go to the UN and pretty much force the issue of international security on the nukes. I dont want the US to do it unilaterally unless it is a last resort. The security force needs to have as few US troops as possible and if possible, as many muslim troops as possible.

As a last resort, the US needs to secure those nukes whether the pakistani govt wants us to or not.

[UpSideDownDesi]

Only if you all knew how close Taliban, Afghani, and Pakistani gov. are. Handing them money is pretty much handing Taliban money. ISI (aka Pakistani CIA) has been known to support, train, provide weapons, plan, and help local terrorist organizations any way they can. Pakistani army has been caught fighting side by side with terrorist outfit for years now. U.S knows about this well, it was on CNN couple of months back, and been looked away. I am all in to support those countries if they really show that they have intentions to take care of the problem. U.S needs to go inside pakistan (since we are such good allies) and finish this problem once and for all. Borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan have become safe haven for terrorists. Terrorits roam freely inside Pakistan. Then Pakistan's saying, U.S can not step foot on Pakistans' soil (which U.S does respect), and it will take care of the problem. Something def. sounds fishy. Right now the Nukes are in good hands, but for how long? Only Pakistani Gov. is with U.S, not their public. Swat Valley has become a problem area because Pakistan allowed Taliban to take its state up as resident and do whatever they please. When things went wrong, come running to U.S for help? Sure, please let U.S fly some Drone, and USAF flights over head, nice ground assault along with Pakistani army and problem solved. Will it happen? Most likely no. On the other hand Afgani President Kazari is picking a Warlord to be his vice president. I wonder where that money is gonna go?

I can see the point where it might be cheaper for U.S to give money and have the problem fixed. We have been giving money since some of us were even born, has the problem been fixed? It has been getting worst in Middle East. Some serious action needs to be taken with the help of other countries to finish this problem once and for all. It's not President Obama who is at fault; he's pretty much doing what others did and making the same mistake. For once U.S simply needs to tell them, handle the problem yourself since you def have arsenal and "700 thousand" man power to put this to stop in your country. Then come ask us for economic help. I am all for that.

[UpSideDownDesi]

This is one of those few cases that I think we need to go to the UN and pretty much force the issue of international security on the nukes. I dont want the US to do it unilaterally unless it is a last resort. The security force needs to have as few US troops as possible and if possible, as many muslim troops as possible.

As a last resort, the US needs to secure those nukes whether the pakistani govt wants us to or not.

If you read one of those articles, Pakistani Zardari state, "does U.S even know where all the Nukes are?". Not letting U.S know the one who will eventually jumping to save half of Asian and Europe, but i can bet some of the top heads in Alkiada/Taliban know where exactly each single one is. If Nuclear Plant Blue Prints can be sold to terrorists and other countries in the black market, don't be surprised location and operations manuals have already been handed out.

What needs to happen as last resort, what Israel did to Iraqi reactors when it became a threat.....15mins changed history.

[BanginJimmy]

I will assure you that the soviets were FAR more advanced in the hiding of their nuke facilities and we knew where they were. I will also assure you that the CIA/NSA knows where all of Pakistan's nukes are. I would also imagine that the US knows where all of France's, England's, India's, and China's are.

[NAMNORI]

Ever consider taking your own advice?

This is not a new strategy for what its worth... it was done in Europe after WWII (the Marshall Plan).

aww the future cnn reporter only took what he liked from what i said.how pathetic. Obama does not like this country he likes the title that the unintelligent voters in this country gave him, he likes the fact that he can bully people and corporations around to get them to do what he wants and not what is best for the american public. If you actually read what i wrote you would have seen that i did mention something about making a difference and helping the country that is why i am getting into politics so i can do the right thing and help our country and not hurt it more than the democrats and republicans have. Anyways back on topic.
The thing is in Europe they didn't (for the most part) hate the US. we spent our money on rebuilding a continent that would be gracious, atleast for a little while. For the most part the people in the middle east do not like the US, why maybe because of our freedoms, maybe because thier media makes us look like we don't care about the rest of the world, if that were the case we would let the taliban and the rest of the terrorist organizations do as they please. we would let dictators kill innocent civilians for wanting freedom. We would le madmen wage wars with whomever they want, but we don't. maybe we should let these asshole do all of these things and just protect ourselves for a while and let the world community protect itself and see what they think of us then. You wanna know something? They would hate us even more.

[hondachik]

Don't we have enough homeless people of our own to take care of?

[NAMNORI]

Don't we have enough homeless people of our own to take care of?

yes we do but we have to help the rest of the world more than our own people.

[DemonEyez]

heck anyone knows where the pakistani nukes are. Number of people my dad could call who would know.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, the idiots there got rid of the only person who was actually working on removing corruption and taliban influence in the country. I speak of Musharraf. Some things he did might be considered cruel (hanging of corrupt politicians etc) Overall though his vision was for a better country, a country that while having its people still be people of the muslim faith, but a government that can work in the current world. Aka the government wont be tied to Islamic law.

But then, few idiots who were given a voice (by him) heard of this thing called democracy! then, just because they felt they didnt vote in Musharraf said "lets get a real democracy going". Which then lead to other "leaders" going with that movement and of course going around and "educating" people on democracy. Somehow, the people of this country forgot that the 2 main candidates they originally were choosing between, Bhutto and Shariff, were removed in the past due to corruption and stealing alot of money from the country. yeah.. they totally 100% forgot about that apparently.

So, gathering the support of Mullah's and more radical's, they used them to rally the support of un-educated folk there, who's only source of leadership is the Mullah's who they believe simply out of faith, and now they have a Turd running the country, when they needed Musharraf.

Things are not going to get better in Pakistan anytime soon. Afghanistan is ever further off by far.

But onto should we spend money there:

Yes. Have to. We can go in there and wipe out the militants, the taliban etc. Sure if the US and other nations all joined forces in a massive strike, it could be done very quickly. BUT it won't work. Remove them, and you leave a void. What will fill that void? more of the same.

The path to recovery for the regions *long path* is economic stimulus.

One thing about the culture in these regions, which is hard for people in the US to grasp due to the biased nature of the news, is that these villagers will want the best life they can get for their family. Nothing is more important than family to these people. So when their family struggles, they turn to Mullah's who promise better life etc etc, which in turn means hey go out and gun down some folk.

So if you build infrastructure, roads, schools. Give them a government which can educate their children, provide them with ways to get food/water etc. They will turn to the government for leadership. Heck look at the Illegal Mexican's here, and alot of the regular immigrants. nearly all come in order to try and build a better life for their children. The illegals come here and work, send money home to families. People will do alot for their families given a chance. Unfortunately, in that region, its false hope given by false Mullah's who use Islam as the catalyst.

ITs all gotta be complicated of course not as simple, but thats kinda the path that needs to be taken.

So again, should the US spend money in that region. They have to. Military force without the funding to help develop the nations, and hopefully force the governments to spend the money in these type ideas and in the regions where the Taliban have their strongholds would be the best way.

All troops and no money won't work.
All money and no troop's wont work either.

[Total_Blender]

Don't we have enough homeless people of our own to take care of?

Some of the republicans/libertarians in here would rather see that money tossed onto a bonfire than used for social programs.

For the most part the people in the middle east do not like the US, why maybe because of our freedoms, maybe because thier media makes us look like we don't care about the rest of the world, if that were the case we would let the taliban and the rest of the terrorist organizations do as they please. we would let dictators kill innocent civilians for wanting freedom. We would le madmen wage wars with whomever they want, but we don't.

I laugh every time I hear the phrase "they hate us for our freedoms". The reason they hate us is because we keep fucking up their shit. We took the democratic gov't out of Iran and installed the Shah. They hated the Shah and had a revolution and then we got the ayatollah.

Then in Iraq, we took out their democratic gov't and installed Saddam. Then we back Saddam in a bloody war with Iran that fucks both countries up. Then we decide we don't like Saddam and we fuck his country up some more. Twice.

Part of the reason they hate us is because we do support dictators. Because we do let madmen rage wars with whomever they want. And then theres Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, deaths of civillians (it's really unavoidable in war), etc.

Most of the anti-american rhetoric there comes from a small but vocal minority. Once order is restored and the people in these countries have something to look forward to other than war, famine, and pestillence the people will tune the radicals out.

[BanginJimmy]

Some of the republicans/libertarians in here would rather see that money tossed onto a bonfire than used for social programs.

I'm one of those conservatives that believe that money given away for nothing is the exact same thing as tossing it into a bonfire. In their present forms, name 1 social program that actually encourages people to get off the program. Name 1 benefit for anyone currently on welfare to get off of it. Why should you work for money when you can sit on your ass having babies to get it?

If you would like my plan for a productive social program then let me know and I will outline it for you. But if you want social programs just for the sake of social programs then there really isnt anything to discuss.

[Total_Blender]

I didn't say anything about having social programs just for the sake of having social programs. I've explained the need for reforms to make these programs based on results rather than blanket spending many times.

Moving education to a results based / service learning system would be a good start (having schools with high dropout rates lose funding/accreditation, and gearing curriculae more toward university/job placement). Another one would be mandatory vocational rehabilitation / job placement assistance for those chronic users of unemployment and welfare. Some of these are systems we have now that just aren't being used/enforced to the extent they need to be.

[BanginJimmy]

I didn't say anything about having social programs just for the sake of having social programs. I've explained the need for reforms to make these programs based on results rather than blanket spending many times.

Moving education to a results based / service learning system would be a good start (having schools with high dropout rates lose funding/accreditation, and gearing curriculae more toward university/job placement). Another one would be mandatory vocational rehabilitation / job placement assistance for those chronic users of unemployment and welfare. Some of these are systems we have now that just aren't being used/enforced to the extent they need to be.

I didnt mean to imply you did, but a vast majority of social program proponents are not in favor of anything that puts limits on usage, or programs to help people get off the programs.

A brief outline of my plan (which isnt much different than yours):

1. Random drug testing. (no time limits on failures)
-If you fail 1 test, no check for the month and you MUST goto a NA course
-if you fail 2 tests, 90 day suspension and you have to complete a govt paid for resident treatment.
-fail 3 times, permanent loss of benefits and if you have kids, you are reported to DFCS as unfit and a chronic drug user.

2. Benefits limited to 3 years, extendable to 5 years if you show sufficient progress in a 4 year school. After the 3 years are up you have to be at at, or close to, the junior year. HOPE (or something similar) covers 100% of school costs including tuition, fees, and books. Also an allowance for general supplies.

3. Free, govt paid for, birth control. No additional money for additional kids after you enter the program. No, waivers.

[eraser4g63]

I didnt mean to imply you did, but a vast majority of social program proponents are not in favor of anything that puts limits on usage, or programs to help people get off the programs.

A brief outline of my plan (which isnt much different than yours):

1. Random drug testing. (no time limits on failures)
-If you fail 1 test, no check for the month and you MUST goto a NA course
-if you fail 2 tests, 90 day suspension and you have to complete a govt paid for resident treatment.
-fail 3 times, permanent loss of benefits and if you have kids, you are reported to DFCS as unfit and a chronic drug user.

2. Benefits limited to 3 years, extendable to 5 years if you show sufficient progress in a 4 year school. After the 3 years are up you have to be at at, or close to, the junior year. HOPE (or something similar) covers 100% of school costs including tuition, fees, and books. Also an allowance for general supplies.

3. Free, govt paid for, birth control. No additional money for additional kids after you enter the program. No, waivers.

I like you idea there but personally i think you are giving two many chances with the drug abuse. other than that that it sounds good.

[eraser4g63]

Some of the republicans/libertarians in here would rather see that money tossed onto a bonfire than used for social programs.

Actually I would rather keep that money because I earned it though i do see a need for some of the programs but they need to be regulated A LOT more than they are now( see above posts). Other than that why don't all these organized religions who preach about helping thy neighbor and all that good shit step up to the plate and take a swing.

[eraser4g63]

Moving education to a results based / service learning system would be a good start (having schools with high dropout rates lose funding/accreditation, and gearing curriculae more toward university/job placement).

My wife would beg to differ, she is a Fulton co. Special Ed teacher. The biggest problem with this is you get more of what we have now. Kids wont learn fundamentals of life because they will teach kids the test ( how else are they going to measure these criteria). When this occurs they forget that knowledge as soon as the test os over, studies have shown this numerous times. You really want to increase the knowledge of the kids and help them do well in life? Then look at the private schools that place kids based on how they do on a subject testing system. IE-you may have a kid that is reading and comprehending what they are reading on a 5th grade level but their math may be par or sub par. So you place that child in an advanced reading class and cultivate that skill that is there and the child is placed in a math class that will work on his math skills. Right now in schools if a child test sub par on anything they place the child in special Ed for every thing. This not only hinders the child but actually begins to cause them to become bored with their other studies. The school system needs reform I will not contest that but a results based ideology is the wrong direction. The best way to go about it is to take the handcuffs of the teachers and allow them to teach. Between no child left behind ( Fuck you W.) and other programs they have literally cause the down fall of the public school system. And if you want teachers to care and be more compassionate allow them more freedom in the class room and better pay, in any case you always get what you pay for.

Sorry for the multiple post in a row.

[Total_Blender]

I posted it before... I am 100% against the "no child left behind" tests for that reason... the kids just learn whats on the tests and not the full curriculum.

When I say that schools should be rated, I mean that they should be rated on their dropout rate v/s how the students within the system place in the job market and in universities. I agree that the idea of rating schools on standardized tests is a bad one.

I'll use my own high school as an example. Freshman class about 570 / graduating senior class 272. About 40% of the seniors failed the graduation test the first time (this was before no child left behind). Out of the graduating class of 272 maybe 100 went on to finish college or tech school. Out of the entering freshman class, I would say more students ended up in "con college" than universities.

[BanginJimmy]

I am a proponent of standardized testing, but not the evaluation process. Standardized testing should be done in a manner that measures a teachers job performance, not just the students. I'm not talking about fill in the blanks type of testing, but actual written testing. Tests should be graded by an independent panel to remove bias from it.

Reading comprehension is a huge one, just like the ability to write a short paragraph. If a student cannot read and comprehend by the 5th grade, he is already falling behind. That same student should be able to write a 150 word paragraph with ease.

The same is truth of math. Basic skills such as area, volume, multiplication, and division need to be tested. The questions need to be phrased in a manner that lends itself towards a real life scenario. Something along the lines of finding the area of a room you want to carpet, and finding the cost of that carpet at say $16.42 a square yard without a calculator.

These are all real life skills that cannot be taught and simply forgotten like much of what they teach in schools as they are skills that are used on a nearly daily basis. Hell, just look at many of the posts on this site and you will see the severe lack of writing ability. I love to see people say that they dont bother to look things over before they post (which I am guilty of and trying to fix). People that type like that on a forum, most likely do the same things in an email. Yes, I have gotten professional emails with U=you, and other "texting" language.

[preferredduck]

opium production has risen in afghan since we have been there, like 300% or something rediculous.

[preferredduck]

I didnt mean to imply you did, but a vast majority of social program proponents are not in favor of anything that puts limits on usage, or programs to help people get off the programs.

A brief outline of my plan (which isnt much different than yours):

1. Random drug testing. (no time limits on failures)
-If you fail 1 test, no check for the month and you MUST goto a NA course
-if you fail 2 tests, 90 day suspension and you have to complete a govt paid for resident treatment.
-fail 3 times, permanent loss of benefits and if you have kids, you are reported to DFCS as unfit and a chronic drug user.

2. Benefits limited to 3 years, extendable to 5 years if you show sufficient progress in a 4 year school. After the 3 years are up you have to be at at, or close to, the junior year. HOPE (or something similar) covers 100% of school costs including tuition, fees, and books. Also an allowance for general supplies.

3. Free, govt paid for, birth control. No additional money for additional kids after you enter the program. No, waivers.

some of the users of social programs i know couldn't pass a drug test to keep medicaid b/c the 3 breaks in their back and lost leg from the knee down b/c of all the meds they have to take. lets not forget abt oxycodone, xana, seroquil, soma. did you know most true pain patients that can't get help. then drink until they pretty much die b/c they can't get meds or treatment through social programs and were hurt on the job. my girlfriends brother is in this bind and if you met him and talked for an hour you would see he has severe, like 75% dissabled and 40% less in the brain and the nice corporation he worked for(cargill) got away good on that one. i agree of getting rid of the trash on welfare, etc. i was a loan officer at world finance a few years ago and most of our clients couldn't pass a test but abused the system and got away with it and were sped through the process/ i saw a 21 year old get rushed through in a week b/c his anti depression meds made it where he couldn't work amd i take pain meds/ muscle relaxes. and nerve pills from a pinched nerve and could not get help and will not get help. that would save billions a year.