HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » In Sign of Thawed Relatio...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:22 AM

In Sign of Thawed Relations, U.S. to Send Aid to Pakistan

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON The Pentagon quietly notified Congress this month that it would reimburse Pakistan nearly $700 million for the cost of stationing 140,000 troops on the border with Afghanistan, an effort to normalize support for the Pakistani military after nearly two years of crises and mutual retaliation.

The biggest proponent of putting foreign aid and military reimbursements to Pakistan on a steady footing is the man President Barack Obama is leaning toward naming as secretary of state: Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has frequently served as an envoy to Pakistan, including after the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was a co-author of a law that authorized five years and about $7.5 billion of nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan.

The United States also provides about $2 billion in annual security assistance, roughly half of which goes to reimburse Pakistan for conducting military operations to fight terrorism.

Until now, many of these reimbursements, called coalition support funds, have been held up, in part because of disputes with Pakistan over the Bin Laden raid, the operations of the C.I.A., and its decision to block supply lines into Afghanistan last year.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/world/asia/pentagon-to-reimburse-pakistan-688-million.html

6 replies, 1315 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply In Sign of Thawed Relations, U.S. to Send Aid to Pakistan (Original post)
jsr Dec 2012 OP
cosmicone Dec 2012 #1
John2 Dec 2012 #2
karynnj Dec 2012 #3
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #4
jsr Dec 2012 #5
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #6

Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:02 AM

1. The money will go straight to Taliban and other terrorists

watch for new terror attacks in India and Afghanistan.

No aid should be given to Pakistan except food and medicines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:07 AM

2. This is another

 

clue why Republicans support him, especially McCain. He authorized us to get into Iraq, although he took it back, when he ran for President. This country is not broke, or going broke at all. They want this money to continue their warmongering and paying other Countries off. And all those Wars are decided by an elite class in this Country, which Obama has entered. It has went to his head. It wouldn't have mattered if it was susan Rice or John Kerry, but kerry is closer to his club buddies in the Senate. Just in case Mr Obama have second thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:16 AM

3. He also authored Kerry/Feingold - but what the hell, it is so much better to attach

a strong liberal Democrat.

As to Iraq, his 2002 position was not far from Dean's - they both preferred Biden/Lugar. The difference was Kerry had to vote and he voted as he said many times to give Bush the leverage needed with Iraq. He said on January 23, 2003 that Bush should not rush to war -- and said that if they went to war at that point it would not be a war of last resort. To a Catholic, that means it would not be a just war. He repeated the comment that it was not a war of last resort throughout 2003 and 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:15 PM

4. How dare they talk about cutting social programs here when they are giving money like that to

Pakistan?

What is Senator Kerry thinking?

What a crazy idea. We send $9.5 billion to help Pakistanis and can't pay proper COLAs to senior citizens who PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY? What is wrong with our values?

Who counts more to our government?

The people of Pakistan or the people here?

Do you realize how much $9.5 billion will buy in a country like Pakistan?

Do you realize that sum of money has far less purchasing power here?

Forget Benghazi. This is the real scandal. How many Pakistani bigwigs do you suppose that money will bribe? How many payoffs? How many retirements in Dubai for Pakistani fanatics?

This is the definition of treason: giving aid -- the $9.5 billion -- to a country that refuses to secure its own border, its own people against terrorists unless we pay them to do it.

If Pakistan is unwilling to take care of its own people with its own money, if they aren't our allies unless we pay off their "leaders," then they are our enemies not our friends. How much of that money will be turned against us, spent by Pakistan to defeat our interests?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:26 PM

5. Heck, we gave them billions all the years they were hiding bin Laden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:19 PM

6. Precisely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread