Home› A Moving Train

20 Billion in aid to Pakistan

Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
edited May 2011 in A Moving Train
THAT'S SOME HUGE SCRATCH in anybodys book.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/ ... d-pakistan



Godfather.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • klusterfukklusterfuk Posts: 1,411
    we need to trim that fat off the budget
    The future's paved with better days

    Alpine Valley Resort is etched in my brain!!!


  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    klusterfuk wrote:
    we need to trim that fat off the budget

    yeah we do !

    Godfather.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i wonder how much of that aid comes in the form of fighter jets or weapons ...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    polaris_x wrote:
    i wonder how much of that aid comes in the form of fighter jets or weapons ...

    all that money and weapondry they will use aginst us at some point ? :D
    seems it allways works out that way.

    Godfather.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Godfather. wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    i wonder how much of that aid comes in the form of fighter jets or weapons ...

    all that money and weapondry they will use aginst us at some point ? :D
    seems it allways works out that way.

    Godfather.

    it depends on how you define 'us' ... i suspect much of that aid is in arms and stuff like education is haliburton building schools at the cost of $5,000 a sq. ft. ...

    this is the shit i'm talking about ... in a few years when pakistan takes over iran as the next bogeyman ... we will point out the same things we pointed out everywhere else ...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    polaris_x wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    i wonder how much of that aid comes in the form of fighter jets or weapons ...

    all that money and weapondry they will use aginst us at some point ? :D
    seems it allways works out that way.

    Godfather.

    it depends on how you define 'us' ... i suspect much of that aid is in arms and stuff like education is haliburton building schools at the cost of $5,000 a sq. ft. ...

    this is the shit i'm talking about ... in a few years when pakistan takes over iran as the next bogeyman ... we will point out the same things we pointed out everywhere else ...

    that is an interesting question "in what form is the $20 billion given ? all money,weapons,food...what ?
    that would be a cool thing to learn.

    Godfather.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Godfather. wrote:
    that is an interesting question "in what form is the $20 billion given ? all money,weapons,food...what ?
    that would be a cool thing to learn.

    Godfather.
    ...
    Pakistan one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this “thank you” to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the U.S. taxpayer $2,374,000,000. By its nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding U.S. oversight.

    Since 2001, there have been significant concerns over the funding:

    The United States has not been transparent about the funds. Until 2009, information has been either hidden from the public or released in a form too aggregated to allow for effective public oversight. Those who have seen the agreements on how funds are to be spent say they have lacked concrete benchmarks, sometimes even concrete figures, and were too vague to be effective.

    The United States misused development funds. Operating costs were high, too much of the aid was ineffective, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs have been hampered by insufficient resources and security concerns.

    There was a lack of agreed strategy for use of funds. Aims for the military aid were poorly defined, and many of the agreements on how funds were to be spent were inadequate.

    The United States had inadequate procedures for checking how Pakistan spent the funds. U.S. Embassy staff in Pakistan were not required to check how the Pakistani military actually spent U.S. funds, the Pakistani army insisted that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—where much of the money was to be spent—were too dangerous to visit, making sustained oversight there impossible; the United States has not been able to check Pakistani army records on how the money was being spent; the procedures in place to check how Pakistan spent the money were inadequate, and the decision to give Pakistan funds in the form of reimbursements made adequate oversight impossible.

    U.S. funds disincentivized democratization by giving the military a disincentive to submit to civilian control, increasing its independence from government, and ignoring evidence of profiteering from military budgets.

    The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F‐16s, aircraft‐mounted armaments, anti‐ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds—54.9 percent—were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter—26.62 percent—on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent on advanced weapons systems.

    There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road‐building for which there is no such evidence either. Fifty‐five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA found Pakistani Frontier Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps “standing ... in the snow in sandals,” with several wearing World War I–era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition each”. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the previous six months. “The great majority” of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years, U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.

    Pakistani counterterrorism failed until 2009. During the years 2001 to mid‐2009, significant parts of the FATA were under Taliban control, and according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted a safe haven in the FATA. Tellingly, when the Pakistani army did launch an effective operation in Malakand in mid‐2009, it was primarily in response to public pressure within Pakistan, not U.S. aid.

    Ref. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... 092009.pdf
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • MariamaniatisMariamaniatis Posts: 90
    Wait. But haven't you heard? All America does is bomb and murder Arabs. Now you're telling me we pay for....education? Bastards we are! In all seriousness this is going to be a tough one for Obama. You can see how the GOP will spike it down his throat come election time if the aid isnt cut, which it sure as fuck should be. But at the same time Pakistan provides all kinds of access to Nato troops that if cut off, could become a logisitical nightmare. Afghanistan is landlocked and we can't fly in everything we need to supply Nato troops on the ground and would imagine the cost to do so would be in excess of that 20 mil.

    In any event, that should all be a blessing in disguise. We should declare "mission accomplished" now and bring the troops home.
  • MariamaniatisMariamaniatis Posts: 90
    Cosmo wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    that is an interesting question "in what form is the $20 billion given ? all money,weapons,food...what ?
    that would be a cool thing to learn.

    Godfather.
    ...
    Pakistan one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this “thank you” to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the U.S. taxpayer $2,374,000,000. By its nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding U.S. oversight.

    Since 2001, there have been significant concerns over the funding:

    The United States has not been transparent about the funds. Until 2009, information has been either hidden from the public or released in a form too aggregated to allow for effective public oversight. Those who have seen the agreements on how funds are to be spent say they have lacked concrete benchmarks, sometimes even concrete figures, and were too vague to be effective.

    The United States misused development funds. Operating costs were high, too much of the aid was ineffective, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs have been hampered by insufficient resources and security concerns.

    There was a lack of agreed strategy for use of funds. Aims for the military aid were poorly defined, and many of the agreements on how funds were to be spent were inadequate.

    The United States had inadequate procedures for checking how Pakistan spent the funds. U.S. Embassy staff in Pakistan were not required to check how the Pakistani military actually spent U.S. funds, the Pakistani army insisted that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—where much of the money was to be spent—were too dangerous to visit, making sustained oversight there impossible; the United States has not been able to check Pakistani army records on how the money was being spent; the procedures in place to check how Pakistan spent the money were inadequate, and the decision to give Pakistan funds in the form of reimbursements made adequate oversight impossible.

    U.S. funds disincentivized democratization by giving the military a disincentive to submit to civilian control, increasing its independence from government, and ignoring evidence of profiteering from military budgets.

    The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F‐16s, aircraft‐mounted armaments, anti‐ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds—54.9 percent—were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter—26.62 percent—on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent on advanced weapons systems.

    There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road‐building for which there is no such evidence either. Fifty‐five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA found Pakistani Frontier Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps “standing ... in the snow in sandals,” with several wearing World War I–era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition each”. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the previous six months. “The great majority” of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years, U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.

    Pakistani counterterrorism failed until 2009. During the years 2001 to mid‐2009, significant parts of the FATA were under Taliban control, and according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted a safe haven in the FATA. Tellingly, when the Pakistani army did launch an effective operation in Malakand in mid‐2009, it was primarily in response to public pressure within Pakistan, not U.S. aid.

    Ref. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... 092009.pdf


    Nice air defense system they got over there...Worked out well for them.
  • Thoughts_ArriveThoughts_Arrive Melbourne, Australia Posts: 15,165
    And they slap you in the face by hiding Osama....
    Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Cosmo wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    that is an interesting question "in what form is the $20 billion given ? all money,weapons,food...what ?
    that would be a cool thing to learn.

    Godfather.
    ...
    Pakistan one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this “thank you” to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the U.S. taxpayer $2,374,000,000. By its nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding U.S. oversight.

    Since 2001, there have been significant concerns over the funding:

    The United States has not been transparent about the funds. Until 2009, information has been either hidden from the public or released in a form too aggregated to allow for effective public oversight. Those who have seen the agreements on how funds are to be spent say they have lacked concrete benchmarks, sometimes even concrete figures, and were too vague to be effective.

    The United States misused development funds. Operating costs were high, too much of the aid was ineffective, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs have been hampered by insufficient resources and security concerns.

    There was a lack of agreed strategy for use of funds. Aims for the military aid were poorly defined, and many of the agreements on how funds were to be spent were inadequate.

    The United States had inadequate procedures for checking how Pakistan spent the funds. U.S. Embassy staff in Pakistan were not required to check how the Pakistani military actually spent U.S. funds, the Pakistani army insisted that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—where much of the money was to be spent—were too dangerous to visit, making sustained oversight there impossible; the United States has not been able to check Pakistani army records on how the money was being spent; the procedures in place to check how Pakistan spent the money were inadequate, and the decision to give Pakistan funds in the form of reimbursements made adequate oversight impossible.

    U.S. funds disincentivized democratization by giving the military a disincentive to submit to civilian control, increasing its independence from government, and ignoring evidence of profiteering from military budgets.

    The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F‐16s, aircraft‐mounted armaments, anti‐ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds—54.9 percent—were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter—26.62 percent—on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent on advanced weapons systems.

    There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road‐building for which there is no such evidence either. Fifty‐five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA found Pakistani Frontier Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps “standing ... in the snow in sandals,” with several wearing World War I–era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition each”. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the previous six months. “The great majority” of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years, U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.

    Pakistani counterterrorism failed until 2009. During the years 2001 to mid‐2009, significant parts of the FATA were under Taliban control, and according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted a safe haven in the FATA. Tellingly, when the Pakistani army did launch an effective operation in Malakand in mid‐2009, it was primarily in response to public pressure within Pakistan, not U.S. aid.

    Ref. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... 092009.pdf


    once again Cosmo thank you, what are your thoughts on cutting the funding to afganistan ?

    Godfather.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Despite all of the aid given to Pakistan, polls show the country has a negative view of the U.S. A 2010 BBC poll found that 52 percent of Pakistanis don’t like the U.S


    :lol::lol::lol: No Shit
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    BinauralJam wrote:
    Despite all of the aid given to Pakistan, polls show the country has a negative view of the U.S. A 2010 BBC poll found that 52 percent of Pakistanis don’t like the U.S


    :lol::lol::lol: No Shit
    we pay them to keep them as "friends"....

    i always loved the dynamic of someone trying to stay friends with someone who genuinely dislikes them...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Extremely difficult situation, and due to the logistical nightmare, it could be a clusterfuck if they don't let NATO transport stuff through the country. Very very touchy, though the emotional response (and logical on the surface) is 'fuck those guys'.

    Also, I don't want a country with nuclear weapons not loving the US...
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • acrossssSsssshitttacrossssSsssshittt Posts: 1,014
    keeponrockin wrote:

    'fuck those guys'.

    already have..
Sign In or Register to comment.