marharth Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share Posted May 7, 2011 Martharth, you're doing it again.:confused: Just relax and let everyone have his/her say. Not everything is directed at you personally. You opened the thread so that you could hear the thoughts of everyone on the topic. Now would be a good time to open ears and close mouth. I'm saying this just as a recommendation for your pure edification in this process, and am not trying to in anyway tease you or demean you. :thumbsup: I know, that's what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say in the reply that you were not allowed to have your own say, it just seemed like that. I kinda replied to the wrong person, quite a few other people were talking about what I said about the CIA. People didn't fully understand what I meant by "Long term espionage mission" so I replied to lisnpuppy (which wasn't a good person to reply to, since it was directed at other people) saying..."What I was trying to say is that the USA should focus entirely on getting as much information as possible about Pakistan, and nothing more." So to make myself clear, I do not think linspuppy is wrong and I fully respect everyone's opinion. It was a misunderstanding due to me replying to the wrong person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 OK I think it is about time I added a constructive comment to this thread, the total US aid to Pakistan is more than $20.7 billion post 9/11, according to the data compiled from information received from the Departments of Defense, State and Agriculture and US Agency for International Development. My proposal is simple, instead of paying them aid for questionable services we pay on a basis of terrorists turned over to the US. We assign a price tag for each and every terrorist and pay only a bounty on cost of that operation. Either that will give the Pakistanis an incentive or we will not be paying for nonexistent help in the war on terror. The savings then may be applied to our deficit or reinvested in our intelligence services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 OK I think it is about time I added a constructive comment to this thread, the total US aid to Pakistan is more than $20.7 billion post 9/11, according to the data compiled from information received from the Departments of Defense, State and Agriculture and US Agency for International Development. My proposal is simple, instead of paying them aid for questionable services we pay on a basis of terrorists turned over to the US. We assign a price tag for each and every terrorist and pay only a bounty on cost of that operation. Either that will give the Pakistanis an incentive or we will not be paying for nonexistent help in the war on terror. The savings then may be applied to our deficit or reinvested in our intelligence services.A bounty system? I love that idea, I just wish I would have thought of that myself. The only problem might be in a new witch hunt of sorts, this time for non-existent terrorists instead of Communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo 2 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Yeah, the Pakistani 'contribution' to the war on terror would be them turning over sheepherders and shopkeepers and letting al queda roam freely inside their borders. BUT aid payouts based on known terrorists (the ones we want, anyway) is a good plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share Posted May 7, 2011 OK I think it is about time I added a constructive comment to this thread, the total US aid to Pakistan is more than $20.7 billion post 9/11, according to the data compiled from information received from the Departments of Defense, State and Agriculture and US Agency for International Development. My proposal is simple, instead of paying them aid for questionable services we pay on a basis of terrorists turned over to the US. We assign a price tag for each and every terrorist and pay only a bounty on cost of that operation. Either that will give the Pakistanis an incentive or we will not be paying for nonexistent help in the war on terror. The savings then may be applied to our deficit or reinvested in our intelligence services.That is a good idea, but the bounties at a total will have to be near our current aid payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 That is a good idea, but the bounties at a total will have to be near our current aid payments.I disagree, they don't contribute, they don't get their money. Judging by our current return on investment in Pakistan, we're not getting much for our money anyways, so why give it to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vindekarr Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 I agree RZ, the Pakistani government has essentialy supported the taliban and for that they need to be censured, a good way to go about that would be to slash aid payments, perhaps starting at about 70%, and working lower if they continue to support known terrorists. Pakistan is a nation we obviously cant trust, but need to use, so, since the olive branch has failed, we need to grab them by the balls and shake em a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 (edited) That is a good idea, but the bounties at a total will have to be near our current aid payments.I disagree, they don't contribute, they don't get their money. Judging by our current return on investment in Pakistan, we're not getting much for our money anyways, so why give it to them? Well, maybe we should think about what they could be. I think the government there is much friendlier than the people would be for pragmatic reasons. Personally I have been pleasantly surprised with what they have done so far when I think about how they could have reacted or how the man on the street in Pakistan would have reacted to us using their country as a staging base and hunting ground. The bounty idea is a good one though. Edited May 8, 2011 by csgators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 8, 2011 Author Share Posted May 8, 2011 That is a good idea, but the bounties at a total will have to be near our current aid payments.I disagree, they don't contribute, they don't get their money. Judging by our current return on investment in Pakistan, we're not getting much for our money anyways, so why give it to them?If we drastically reduce the aid payments and replace it with a much smaller bounty system, it is likely they will not bother trying to catch anyone. Its quite clear they are helping out certain terrorist groups already, lowering payments in a bounty system to make them help out won't work in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 But if it's not working now, why keep doing it? Let's give them money they can forward on to terrorist groups, thus being indirectly responsible for terrorist attacks being launched, possibly at home, but definitely abroad? I don't see how that makes more sense. At least with a bounty system, that money is (hopefully) worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now