We shouldn't be treating them as friends. Stop sending them any kind of aid. Pakistan is like the guy who asks you to come over with your pickup to help him move but talks shit about you behind your back to all your friends.
We won't cut ties because there are lots of flies left to swat. The flies also want to get ahold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. A flies dream is to disrupt your American Idol or Dancing with the Stars diversions with one of those nuclear weapons. Please continue to support America's efforts in that region.
Our natural ally is India. Our constant propping up of Pakistan is wearing thin with India. If we are going to prop anyone up in the middle east it should be India and maybe Turkey, because they are actual democracies certainly not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The bottom line however is: We need to stop meddling in and sending money to all countries. Let India and Pakistan work their problems out and we can offer to broker a nuclear arms reduction deal, along with reducing our own arsenal, if the interventionists here feel we have to stick our noses in something.
So, Jerry you think that all of our interventionist actions since the end of WW2 have been working out? I have another question for you, if I may: What do you think was the root cause of 9-11?
Perhaps we need to establish a definition for 'relations.'
There are approximately 5000 Americans living in Pakistan. The U. S. has four embassies in Pakistan: Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar. American corporations in Pakistan: Abbott Laboratories, AES Pakistan, American Consultants, American President Lines, Bank of America, Brink's Pakistan, Caltex Oil Pakistan, Captain-PQ Chemical Industries, Carrier Service Company, Citibank, The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, Colgate-Palmolive Pakistan, Cornpak, Crescent Greenwood, Cyanamid Pakistan, Dawood Hercules Chemicals, DHL Pakistan, DuPont Far East Inc., Eli Lilly Scientific Office, Engro Chemical Pakistan, First International Investment Bank, The General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan, Gillette Pakistan, IBM Semea, Intel Pakistan, International Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson Pakistan, Karachi International Container Terminal, Karam Ceramics, KFC, McDonalds, Merck Sharp & Dohme Pakistan, Morgan Stanley Pakistan Investment Fund, Muller & Phipps Pakistan, New Hampshire Insurance Company, Occidental Pakistan, Pakistan Mobile Communications, Parke, Davis & Company, Pepsi-Cola Pakistan, Pfizer Laboratories, Pizza Hut, Premier Tobacco Industries, Procter & Gamble Pakistan, Rafhan Maize Products Company, Sheraton Middle East Management Corp., Singer Pakistan, Smith Kline Becham Pakistan, Squibb Pakistan, 3M Pakistan, Union Texas Pakistan, Upjohn Pakistan.
I have rarely been an advocate for alienation of diplomatic relations with a nation. (The exception, Iran when our embassy came under attack in 1979) Cessation of diplomatic relations seems counter-productive and, likewise, counter-intuitive.
Maintaining dialogue, however strained, is more productive than estrangement.
CUT RELATIONS AND FUNDING!!! They have been playing both sides for years now...with US Tax payer funding!! India on the other hand has been an ally to the U.S. In my opinion we need to build a forward operating base in India to stabilize the War on Terrorism in that region of the world.
...And when nuclear-club-member Pakistan becomes paranoid, how do we keep the lid on? I assume everyone is aware of the long-simmering distrust between India and Pakistan. It has been less than a decade since international diplomacy was required to quell just such a possibility.
I agree with C.M. on this one, cutting off all ties would be counter productive. It doesn't mean we have to lavish support on them, but we have interests to protect and in these types of relations, the old adage fits...keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Dave, your questions to me are beyond the scope of this poll question.
Maintaining "relations" with Pakistan is key to America's efforts to combat terrorism and prevent nuclear proliferation. America is also invested heavily there as CM Barons pointed out.
Ron Paul: Another guy, another opinion, just like you, just like me.
Jerry, if you don't want to engage in a discussion, that's fine with me, I respect that. I asked those questions in response to your statement "I'm also very thankful that your comments will never become policy." The Ron Paul material is just to re-enforce that since he is a Candidate for The US Presidency and if elected, his policies would be very similar to my comments. That's all. Case closed.
C.M. if Pakistan and India keep on knowing that the US and the UN will intervene every time things heat up, either one (usually Pakistan) will continue to engage in brinkmanship. Maybe if they think they are playing for real, they might not be so punchy. We have to stop being the World Police. And we have to stop meddling in other countries business, we have in effect started a civil war in Pakistan. Relations (Embassy, Trade) are OK, but we are way past that at this point.
Dave, I won't argue your logic or assessment. As I noted from the start, if by relations we are talking diplomacy, I can't see pulling the plug on Pakistan. As to aid, I agree that a new set of priorities is past due. I will say, though, the person who releases a genie bears responsibility for getting him back in the bottle.
Let's be clear cutting off aid is not the same as cutting of diplomatic relations.
The place to start cutting the aid is the subsidies given to all of the above American corporations that have fled the U.S. and flocked to Pakisatan and other foriegn nations in search of lower wages, few if any environmental controls, and preferential tax treatment. End those subsidies and you kill the demand to provide the foriegn aid in the form or military hardware and cash by American corporations who want to protect their assets at the U.S. taxpayers expense.
India and Pakistan can and will resolve their differances much sooner without outside help or intervention, let them choose for themselves. It is time for the U.S. to concentrate on our own problems here at home and to stop meddling. If the Chinese or the Russians or the Martians, want to cover the costs that come with hegemony in that part of the world it's time for us to wave good by. Keep the embassies open, issue visas, have diplomatic relations, just stop the foriegn aid.
We shouldn't be treating them
We shouldn't be treating them as friends. Stop sending them any kind of aid. Pakistan is like the guy who asks you to come over with your pickup to help him move but talks shit about you behind your back to all your friends.
We won't cut ties because
We won't cut ties because there are lots of flies left to swat. The flies also want to get ahold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. A flies dream is to disrupt your American Idol or Dancing with the Stars diversions with one of those nuclear weapons. Please continue to support America's efforts in that region.
The reality is we need
The reality is we need Pakistan.
Our natural ally is India.
Our natural ally is India. Our constant propping up of Pakistan is wearing thin with India. If we are going to prop anyone up in the middle east it should be India and maybe Turkey, because they are actual democracies certainly not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The bottom line however is: We need to stop meddling in and sending money to all countries. Let India and Pakistan work their problems out and we can offer to broker a nuclear arms reduction deal, along with reducing our own arsenal, if the interventionists here feel we have to stick our noses in something.
Dave, I'm sure you're
Dave, I'm sure you're sincere, but I'm also very thankful that your comments will never become policy.
So, Jerry you think that all
So, Jerry you think that all of our interventionist actions since the end of WW2 have been working out? I have another question for you, if I may: What do you think was the root cause of 9-11?
http://www.newsmax.com/Inside
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RonPaul-Pakistan-occupation/2011/05/…
AND
<object width="460" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aAnqlQtMs2s?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aAnqlQtMs2s?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="460" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Perhaps we need to establish
Perhaps we need to establish a definition for 'relations.'
There are approximately 5000 Americans living in Pakistan. The U. S. has four embassies in Pakistan: Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar. American corporations in Pakistan: Abbott Laboratories, AES Pakistan, American Consultants, American President Lines, Bank of America, Brink's Pakistan, Caltex Oil Pakistan, Captain-PQ Chemical Industries, Carrier Service Company, Citibank, The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, Colgate-Palmolive Pakistan, Cornpak, Crescent Greenwood, Cyanamid Pakistan, Dawood Hercules Chemicals, DHL Pakistan, DuPont Far East Inc., Eli Lilly Scientific Office, Engro Chemical Pakistan, First International Investment Bank, The General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan, Gillette Pakistan, IBM Semea, Intel Pakistan, International Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson Pakistan, Karachi International Container Terminal, Karam Ceramics, KFC, McDonalds, Merck Sharp & Dohme Pakistan, Morgan Stanley Pakistan Investment Fund, Muller & Phipps Pakistan, New Hampshire Insurance Company, Occidental Pakistan, Pakistan Mobile Communications, Parke, Davis & Company, Pepsi-Cola Pakistan, Pfizer Laboratories, Pizza Hut, Premier Tobacco Industries, Procter & Gamble Pakistan, Rafhan Maize Products Company, Sheraton Middle East Management Corp., Singer Pakistan, Smith Kline Becham Pakistan, Squibb Pakistan, 3M Pakistan, Union Texas Pakistan, Upjohn Pakistan.
I have rarely been an advocate for alienation of diplomatic relations with a nation. (The exception, Iran when our embassy came under attack in 1979) Cessation of diplomatic relations seems counter-productive and, likewise, counter-intuitive.
Maintaining dialogue, however strained, is more productive than estrangement.
CUT RELATIONS AND FUNDING!!!
CUT RELATIONS AND FUNDING!!! They have been playing both sides for years now...with US Tax payer funding!! India on the other hand has been an ally to the U.S. In my opinion we need to build a forward operating base in India to stabilize the War on Terrorism in that region of the world.
...And when
...And when nuclear-club-member Pakistan becomes paranoid, how do we keep the lid on? I assume everyone is aware of the long-simmering distrust between India and Pakistan. It has been less than a decade since international diplomacy was required to quell just such a possibility.
I agree with C.M. on this
I agree with C.M. on this one, cutting off all ties would be counter productive. It doesn't mean we have to lavish support on them, but we have interests to protect and in these types of relations, the old adage fits...keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Dave, your questions to me
Dave, your questions to me are beyond the scope of this poll question.
Maintaining "relations" with Pakistan is key to America's efforts to combat terrorism and prevent nuclear proliferation. America is also invested heavily there as CM Barons pointed out.
Ron Paul: Another guy, another opinion, just like you, just like me.
Aiding Pakistan is aiding an
Aiding Pakistan is aiding an enemy. It's no different than giving money directly to the Taliban.
Jerry, if you don't want to
Jerry, if you don't want to engage in a discussion, that's fine with me, I respect that. I asked those questions in response to your statement "I'm also very thankful that your comments will never become policy." The Ron Paul material is just to re-enforce that since he is a Candidate for The US Presidency and if elected, his policies would be very similar to my comments. That's all. Case closed.
C.M. if Pakistan and India keep on knowing that the US and the UN will intervene every time things heat up, either one (usually Pakistan) will continue to engage in brinkmanship. Maybe if they think they are playing for real, they might not be so punchy. We have to stop being the World Police. And we have to stop meddling in other countries business, we have in effect started a civil war in Pakistan. Relations (Embassy, Trade) are OK, but we are way past that at this point.
Dave, I won't argue your
Dave, I won't argue your logic or assessment. As I noted from the start, if by relations we are talking diplomacy, I can't see pulling the plug on Pakistan. As to aid, I agree that a new set of priorities is past due. I will say, though, the person who releases a genie bears responsibility for getting him back in the bottle.
Let's be clear cutting off
Let's be clear cutting off aid is not the same as cutting of diplomatic relations.
The place to start cutting the aid is the subsidies given to all of the above American corporations that have fled the U.S. and flocked to Pakisatan and other foriegn nations in search of lower wages, few if any environmental controls, and preferential tax treatment. End those subsidies and you kill the demand to provide the foriegn aid in the form or military hardware and cash by American corporations who want to protect their assets at the U.S. taxpayers expense.
India and Pakistan can and will resolve their differances much sooner without outside help or intervention, let them choose for themselves. It is time for the U.S. to concentrate on our own problems here at home and to stop meddling. If the Chinese or the Russians or the Martians, want to cover the costs that come with hegemony in that part of the world it's time for us to wave good by. Keep the embassies open, issue visas, have diplomatic relations, just stop the foriegn aid.
Should the U.S. cut off
Should the U.S. cut off relations with Pakistan?
NO.