US grants over 300 million dollars aid to Pakistan

DeepikaGlobal ^ | Wednesday, October 1, 2003 | DPA

[yonif]

Islamabad, Oct 1 (DPA) The United States has approved a total of 388 million dollars assistance for Pakistan in the financial year which started today, a senior USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) official announced in Islamabad.

Mark Ward, country director USAID, said around 213 million dollars would finance social sector development in the Moslem country which is helping the U.S. war on terrorism and may contribute peacekeeping troops for Iraq.

Another 75 million dollars would be in military assistance and 25 million dollars to combat narcotics. USAID sources indicated the entire aid amount would be a grant.

President George W. Bush has also promised a three billion-dollar aid package, divided equally between economic and military assistance, to the country over five years, beginning 2005.

Pakistan has requested that the economic part of the package be used to write off the nearly two billion dollar debt it owes to the U.S.

Washington made it clear that Pakistan will have to deliver on its commitments for the U.S. Congress to approve the yearly disbursement of 600 million dollars of the package.

USAID had closed its operations in Pakistan in 1995 under the sanctions imposed by the Congress to oppose the country's nuclear programme. It reopened in July 2002 after Pakistan joined the U.S. war on terrorism in Afghanistan, reversing its pro-Taliban policy.

[TADSLOS]

The United States has approved a total of 388 million dollars assistance for Pakistan in the financial year which started today

That'll just about cover the production and transportation costs for those enriched uranium shipments to Iran.

[yonif]

Or terrorist activities against Indians.

[joesnuffy]

but we charge our troops air fare for their R&R flights home
well at least we arent chargin em for plasma yet

[swarthyguy]

Is this what you're talking about? Is it true? Sounds mad.

Soldier must pay for his trip home



We are usually quiet individuals, expressing little about world events and politics, etc. However, we have to stand up and say something now.


Our son-in-law is in the Army, serving our country for several months in Iraq. He was recently authorized to return home for two weeks. We are all grateful for this news! However, there is one catch _ he has to pay for the journey!


How can the government expect him to pay his own airfare? It seems unfair the government won't foot the bill to send troops home, after they risk their lives for our country. They have had to leave their families struggling emotionally and some financially. Then when they do have the opportunity to come home briefly, they are expected to pay their own way.


This is an atrocity! And, too often, there is no way some of these families can afford the airfare.


Our country is spending a fortune on behalf of another country. But, our fighting forces should be the main priority, including traveling home for a reprieve. We truly believe our armed forces should be rewarded with a paid visit to their loved ones. Don't you?

Randy and Pam Forcier
Spokane
Spokane, WA

---

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news/letters.asp?date=092803&id=l16340

[swarthyguy]

http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1084842003

Karzai accuses Pakistan over terrorism

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT


HAMID Karzai, the Afghan president, yesterday accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists and undermining his country’s chances of a peaceful future.

In a lecture at the Parliament Hall at St Andrews University, Mr Karzai claimed it was impossible to prevent terrorists returning to Afghanistan unless Pakistan co-operated sincerely with the Afghan government.

And he said governments of countries in the region had to stop using extremism as instruments of policy.

"The co-operation in the anti-terrorist campaign has to be between nation states," he said. "I don’t think that Afghanistan can do much on its own to prevent the resurgence of, the regrouping, the reorganisation, the re-equipment and refinancing of the Taleban without co-operation in the region, and to be more specific, I don’t think we can deter terrorism or stop it rising up again unless Pakistan co-operates with us, sincerely and effectively."

He said there were religious schools in Pakistan, known as madrasas, where pupils were being schooled in the art of terrorism.

"There are places disguised as madrasas that are teaching explosives, how to use a Kalashnikov, how to plant a bomb, how to be hateful to people, how to spread hatred, how to pass hurt. I have told the Pakistani president that we cannot do without their help and, of course, without the help of the rest of the world.

[gdani]

What a fantastic idea!!!

Giving money to a military dictator who seized power through a coup & then re-wrote the constitution to give himself ultimate authority.

I was hoping -- post 9/11 -- that we were done with this stuff.

And don't get me started on the Saudis..........

[swarthyguy]

This deal subject to congressional approval....

But here's some better news. Quietly, unpublicised but another military exercise....

Indo-US air exercises in February

NEW DELHI: The first-ever joint air combat exercise between Indian and American air forces will held at Gwalior in February and will involve mock aerial battles, to help the two sides to learn each other’s operational philosophy and tactics.

The American and Indian navies are also poised to start their “Malabar-CY-03” joint exercise off Kochi on October 5.

Above with an American nuclear submarine, the exercise will witness frontline warships, special operations forces, and fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from both sides.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is keen to sharpen its beyond visual range (BVR) combat skills, which are more important than within visual range (WVR) combat in modern warfare.

“The Americans are more experienced in BVR combat and we can pick up a thing or two from them,” said a news report quoting an officer. The IAF is likely to deploy MiG-21 “Bisons and Mirage-2000s in the exercise, while the Americans will field their F-16 “Eagles”.

Combat jets will undertake both ground attack and air defence missions, including fighter interceptions, protection of high-value aerial targets, and use of precision-guided munitions. Media reports said, “the exercise will include anti-submarine warfare, replenishment while underway and sea control missions”. —APP

[TADSLOS]

We also have a joint exercise in progress with the Indian Army and some of our light infantry in the mountain regions of India. The Indian Army is providing their expertise on mountain warfare against the Pakis.

[Prodigal Son]

Giving money to a military dictator who seized power through a coup & then re-wrote the constitution to give himself ultimate authority.

It's better than the alternative- Taliban with nukes.

[GrandmaPatriot]

Is this what you're talking about? Is it true? Sounds mad.

Soldier must pay for his trip home

We are NOT charging our troops for their flights home. It seems that certain people want to tell only part of the story. A biased slant is a good thing, right? Let's make the US look bad. In fact the troops are flown, at the military's expense, from Iraq to Baltimore. How they get from there to their homes is up to them. At this time, all the airlines are offering deep discounts for the troops to get from Baltimore to their homes.

I don't know what the policy has been in the past about leaves but I don't think the military has ever paid for door to door transport unless they can catch a ride on a military plane. My friend has always had to pay to get home from where he is stationed in the US. The lies the left is spouting are neverending and devious.

[swarthyguy]

So it's from the base/disembarkation port in CONUS to where ever home may be. Thanks for the clarification.

[Cronos]

I can agree with an aid package, but not to write off the $2 billion, unless they reduce their nuke capability.

[gdani]

Giving money to a military dictator who seized power through a coup & then re-wrote the constitution to give himself ultimate authority.

It's better than the alternative- Taliban with nukes.

"It's better than the alternative" was exactly the thinking what got us involved with Saddam, Bin Laden, Iran, etc over the past 20 years.

Hasn't worked too well in the past.

[Prodigal Son]

You would prefer the Taliban with nukes then I take it?

What's different about this situation and the situations that came before is there were no nukes involved.

What would you do to sort this situation out?

[gdani]

You would prefer the Taliban with nukes then I take it?

What part of our billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan guarantees that the Taliban will never get nukes?

We can talk all we want about being friends to oppressed people, being a beacon of freedom, etc but as long as we keep supporting Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc we will look like hypocritical stooges.

Maybe you want *your* tax dollars going to a military dictator who siezed power through a coup. I do not. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[swarthyguy]

Birds of a feather....

[Prodigal Son]

We can talk all we want about being friends to oppressed people,

Nobody's talking about that.

All we're doing is buying time. We don't possess the military capability to go into Pakistan at the moment. We've got a lot on our plate. If we don't help Musharraf and the Taliban takes him down, the Taliban gets those nukes. Then what? They've already tried to kill him three times. Giving him monetary aid is not an end solution but it's something we can do at the moment as opposed to sitting around waiting for bin Laden to become the world's first terrorist nuclear power. There are no guarantees. If you're looking for a guarantee might I suggest a different planet? You're not going to get one on Earth. If throwing money Musharraf's way gives him sufficient carrot to put pressure on the fundies in his North West Province I won't object to it.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Yeah, well, whenever faced with a choice between the two, you always have to pick the lesser one- like it or not.

You still haven't offered a better solution. That's the bottom line. If you can come up with one there's a lot of people out there that would probably like to know about it.

[gdani]

We can talk all we want about being friends to oppressed people...

Nobody's talking about that.

That wasn't a reason for invading Iraq? For going into Liberia? Serbia? Our embargo against Cuba?

If we don't help Musharraf and the Taliban takes him down, the Taliban gets those nukes. Then what?

I don't like nukes in *either* of their hands. One is just as bad as the other.

....as opposed to sitting around waiting for bin Laden to become the world's first terrorist nuclear power.

Well, it's not as easy as a) acquire nuclear weapons and b) use them. There are a LOT of steps in between (such as testing, acquiring a delivery system, etc) so I believe your concerns are overblown (but not without merit).

Yeah, well, whenever faced with a choice between the two, you always have to pick the lesser one- like it or not.

And that's exactly the mess we got in with Bin Laden, Saddam, Iran-Contra, Noriega, etc. Perhaps if we hadn't failed so many times using this logic I would be more receptive.

You still haven't offered a better solution. That's the bottom line. If you can come up with one there's a lot of people out there that would probably like to know about it.

Hey -- I hear ya. But giving billions of dollars of *my* tax money to a military dictator who seized power through a coup, then re-wrote the constitution to give himself ultimate control over the entire country, and who regularly threatens his neighbor (India) is incredibly short-sighted.

In short, I have a hard time believing that the ONLY option we have is dealing with Pakistan as our ally. That's as lazy as it gets with foreign policy.

[Prodigal Son]

I don't like nukes in *either* of their hands. One is just as bad as the other.

Uhhh. No.

Musharraf wants nukes as a deterrence to India. The Taliban and al Qaeda want nukes so they can set one or more off in the US. Big difference.Well, it's not as easy as a) acquire nuclear weapons and b) use them. There are a LOT of steps in between (such as testing, acquiring a delivery system, etc) so I believe your concerns are overblown (but not without merit).

The testing has already been done. See that's the difference between having to develop the weapons from scratch and simply appropriating a fully functional nuke program. We already know Pakistan knows how to detonate a nuke- this is not in question. The delivery system already exists. It's called container ships. It is impossible for us to track every container ship that comes to America. We can only account for about 1% of them. We cannot account for what might land in Mexico and as you already know, it is impossible for us to police our southern border effectively. Drug cartels from Central and South America have an existing network they use to subvert our nation's borders- a network that is, BTW, much more effective at getting stuff in than we are at keeping stuff out.

This is the problem when we merely consider the continental US. The problem is magnified when we look at how many targets for a truck borne nuke there are out there in the larger world. Imagine one going off in down town Tokyo...

In short, I have a hard time believing that the ONLY option we have is dealing with Pakistan as our ally. That's as lazy as it gets with foreign policy.

Oh it's not our only option. We can nuke them or invade them. At the moment, we do not have the forces to invade. That leaves nuking them. Would you want to do this? I imagine Russia and China wouldn't like that too much. You wouldn't just want to do it without warning those two either- things could get out of control.

There is another solution but it requires Musharraf's cooperation. We need his cooperation to monitor these tribes with whom bin Laden is hiding. We need to be able to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan when necessary so our SpecOps guys can conduct missions in the country. This allows us to keep a lid on bin Laden. This money you see going to Pakistan is buying that sort of thing.

Like I said though, if you have a better idea...