Feeding The Pakistan Military

2007-05-21 18:13:25

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6976|Global Command

The Bush Administration is contributing significantly to the militarization of South Asia. In pursuit of its War on Terror, the Bush Administration has been subsidizing General Musharraf and his military as they continue to cling to power in Pakistan. Pakistan is most definitely not a poster child for Mr. Bush's "Freedom Agenda". Yet it is a poster child for everything that is wrong with Mr. Bush's War on Terror.

The Bush Administration funds 20% of Pakistan's military budget by writing big monthly checks to the Pakistan military. That American largesse is ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses in the War on Terror. However, in reality the money flows regardless of any work Pakistan actually performs in support of Mr. Bush's war.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25621

https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200512/r66240_183174.jpg

The checks the U.S. write total about 80 million per month, not including lol, so called " covert funds ".

However, recently Pakistani troops have been firing heavy weapons on American and Afganistan troops.
http://www.nowpublic.com/seven_killed_i … han_troops

Fuck fuck fuck

more...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … ferl01.htm

Last edited by ATG (2007-05-21 18:17:02)

2007-05-21 18:16:35

#2

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7090

if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.

2007-05-21 18:18:47

#3

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6976|Global Command

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.

Can't we just nuke them? Seriously GS, your military, why can't we, logistically speaking, nuke these bastards?

2007-05-21 18:19:22

#4

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7090

ATG wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.
Can't we just nuke them? Seriously GS, your military, why can't we, logistically speaking, nuke these bastards?

because the fallout would be like we're nuking ourselves. its like farting in a crowded room with the door closed.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-21 18:20:04)

2007-05-21 18:21:00

#5

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6976|Global Command

Tactical low yield nukes?

Jesus, I am so sick of this shit.

2007-05-22 00:39:42

#6

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7002

This is Osama v the USSR all over again. When will ye fucking learn? Pakistan is far far scarier than Iran or any other middle eastern nation as far as I'm concerned.

2007-05-22 00:48:14

#7

Reciprocity: Member; +721|7027|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Today's clashes were in an area where a soldier from Pakistan's Frontier Corps shot dead a U.S. soldier after talks aimed at calming tensions

-so we're funding an army that is killing our troops? typical war on terror strategy.

2007-05-22 01:56:56

#8

JahManRed: wank; +646|7075|IRELAND

Pakistan is/was the bigger threat after Afghanistan and if Bush was going anywhere, it should have been in there.
Pakistan are a poster child for all crack pot dictatorships wishing to hold onto power by having nukes. Makes sense.

Don't have nukes, brutally suppress the population, no elections military dictatorship and you go on the axis of evil.

Have nukes, brutally suppress the population, no elections military dictatorship and you go on the USA's bankroll.

Something wrong with this picture?

I would love to hear a "we are spreading freedom" conservative type defend that.

2007-05-22 02:18:17

#9

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7257|Nårvei

Feeding any foreign millitary that isn`t a close ally is stupid imho, and has kinda backfired more than once for the US government.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-22 04:25:22

#10

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|7008

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
ATG wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.
Can't we just nuke them? Seriously GS, your military, why can't we, logistically speaking, nuke these bastards?
because the fallout would be like we're nuking ourselves. its like farting in a crowded room with the door closed.

That and the international response. If the US starts launching nukes the rest of the world isn't gonna just sit back and watch.

2007-05-22 05:41:32

#11

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6976|Global Command

It was frustration speaking.

2007-05-22 05:49:54

#12

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6737|Éire

ATG wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.
Can't we just nuke them? Seriously GS, your military, why can't we, logistically speaking, nuke these bastards?

I can't believe someone of your level of intelligence would seriously consider such a tactic in any world conflict other than an all out full scale offensive on American soil.

Nukes = game over.

2007-05-22 06:00:18

#13

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7112|NT, like Mick Dundee

Braddock wrote:
ATG wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if musharref doesnt have his army, youll have somebody like bin laden running that country with a nuclear arsenal.
Can't we just nuke them? Seriously GS, your military, why can't we, logistically speaking, nuke these bastards?
I can't believe someone of your level of intelligence would seriously consider such a tactic in any world conflict other than an all out full scale offensive on American soil.

Nukes = game over.

As he said, frustration.

Pakistan is a dangerous country; make no mistake. Soon the Kashmir thing might blow up with fatal consequences for millions if something isn't done. Just wanted to add that as I said in the other thread, wouldn't this money be better off elsewhere? Maybe Lebanon?

Last edited by Flecco (2007-05-22 06:20:34)

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2007-05-22 06:25:44

#14

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6966|Πάϊ

ATG, I couldn't agree more with the OP. But when you say nuke 'em... and I'm not being sarcastic, how exactly do you picture that happening? And what exactly is going to be nuked?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because the fallout would be like we're nuking ourselves. its like farting in a crowded room with the door closed.

lol spot on!

edit:

ATG wrote:
It was frustration speaking.

I read ya.

Last edited by oug (2007-05-22 06:27:58)

_ƒ³

2007-05-22 07:31:47

#15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7028|SE London

Pakistan is a country on a knife edge, even more so than Iran. The country could easily slip into being run by fundamentalists, which would probably be far worse than any sort of military dictatorship. If this were to happen, in a country with nukes, who have already been seen to be quite liberal with the technology, it would not suprise me to see a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon within a decade of that change occuring. Pakistan is the one to watch. It's worth keeping an eye on Iran too and don't forget to pay attention to the Saudis, bad stuff could happen there too and they have an army worth worrying about.

2007-05-22 07:39:44

#16

klassekock: Proud Born Loser; +68|7033|Sweden

Pakistan vs. USA - Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...................

2007-05-22 07:52:07

#17

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7068|London, England

klassekock wrote:
Pakistan vs. USA - Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...................

No, it's not really like that.

I think the reason the US was allied with Pakistan and Afghanistan was because of the Cold War. The US supplied both countries to fight off Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and presumably helped out Pakistan to fight off a then Soviet equipped Indian Military in the many wars those two country's had (which they got their asses kicked, even though they had US equipment)

Funny how the Afghans and Pakistanis weren't shouting "Death to America" when they were getting F16's and Stingers for free and shit.

2007-05-22 07:59:04

#18

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7028|SE London

Mekstizzle wrote:
Funny how the Afghans and Pakistanis weren't shouting "Death to America" when they were getting F16's and Stingers for free and shit.

That's precisely why all this shit happened. The US administrations changed, funding was withdrawn, the nations they were funding felt betrayed and there was an inevitable backlash.

It's a bad idea to arm countries up and give them loads of money and then suddenly stop. Because then you have a well armed country, that you've just armed, really pissed off at you. Most of the problems in the Middle East stem from this type of scenario.

2007-05-22 09:11:49

#19

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7288|Cologne, Germany

Pakistan is the classical example of the US dealing with the lesser of two evils. Musharraf is no better than any other Asian dictator, but he is western-friendly, and that's all that counts for the US. The problem is that Pakistan is full of islamic militants, who are constantly fighting the pro-western government. If the security situation worsens, it is difficult to say wether Musharraf can hold out for long.

But the US has no choice. Pakistan is a nuclear power, and keeping an US-friendly government in power is basically the only chance the US has to ensure those nukes don't fall into the hands of islamic militants.

2007-05-22 09:12:50

#20

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6670|Escea

All you'd have to do is get India involved, then all hell would break loose.

BF2S Forums Feeding The Pakistan Military

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Braddock wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ATG wrote:

klassekock wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Board footer