$30 billion in military and economic aid, and debt forgiveness, has been lavished by the American government on Pakistan, and on Bush's loyal friend Musharraf -- whom he not only could count on, but who of course would remain forever in power, since late 2001 alone.
What have we gotten for that money?
And before that, decades of non-stop aid, especially military aid -- including top-of-the-line F-16s -- have gone to Pakistan, aided by the devotion of generations of American diplomats and generals, so enamored of those ramrod-straight terry-thomas-moustachioed Pakistani generals. They regarded them as our true-blue allies not despite but because of Islam, for Islam was seen only, by the Dulles brothers and those at that uncomprehending level, as a "bulwark against Communism," comparing so favorably with those Indians, seen as oily, untrustworthy and marxisants -- that America-bashing Krishna Menon with his New Left Book Club subscription, that supercilious Jawaharlal Nehru with his Fabianism presumably intact. Why else would he have allowed the Soviets to build a steel mill for the Indians, were he not untrustworthy?
What did we get for all that military aid, all those advanced planes, that we delivered to those Pakistani generals who have been impressing members of the American government and its military for the past fifty years, ever since the days when the military alliance of CENTO (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, the U.S., Great Britain) seemed to be just the ticket.
Not much has changed.
It has taken America and the world a long time to figure out that the Pakistanis -- all of them, even the least Muslim and seemingly the most Western of them – are not trustworthy friends. See, for example, the late Pinky Bhutto, whose happiest days were spent walking from Briggs Hall to Nini's Corner to buy newspapers and magazines, unaccompanied by bodyguards, but who can be seen on YouTube ranting hysterically as she calls for Jihad against Hindus in Kashmir. It has taken a long time, and a lot of money, for Americans, and still today only a few do see it.
If the government of Pakistan today dares to criticize the Americans for taking the most minimal measures to stop the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) from wreaking havoc in Afghanistan, the same Pakistani government that continues to protect, continues to make unavailable to American interrogators the sinister I.S.I. man, A. Q. Khan, and if the Pakistanis continue to stand in the way, then let's simply cut the whole country off. We should not only cut off all aid, but also cut off Pakistan’s ability to export goods to America and the rest of the West. And in tandem with Great Britain, we should end all ties to Pakistan, and end all immigration -- including that phony "family reunion" business -- from Pakistan. And at the same time we should make it a point to investigate the tax-paying practices of Pakistani-owned "convenience stores." Oh, and we should check to see how many are here illegally -- a recent New Yorker article on shoplifting rings mentions that one of the most successful of such gangs consisted of "thirty Pakistanis, most of them illegal immigrants, some of them the owners of convenience stores." We should also check out the rug stores -- how many of those Pakistani rug dealers sell rugs made by child labor, Christian-child labor, in Pakistan?
At the same time, we should systematically put pressure on, investigate, and find out all the ways that Pakistani immigrants have fiddled the system, both here and in Great Britain. It wouldn't be hard to use the tax laws, and other laws, to reduce to manageable proportions the threat some pose, and to change the behavior, if not the real attitudes, of others, as they begin to realize that they are not home free, as too many Muslims appear to believe. Too many Muslims appear to think that they can continue to press and make demands when they are vulnerable to such investigations of their commercial and tax-paying practices.
Oh, one more thing.
We want that thirty billion dollars we have in the last seven years lavished on a mendacious and largely unhelpful Pakistan back. We want it now.
Cheer up, Hugh.
Barack Obama has stated that if he gets elected president of the US (God forbid), he will attempt to impose a tax upon the American taxpayers (to the tune of $850 BILLION) and 'give' it to the OIC-dominated UN. Assuredly most of that 850 billion will end up in the hands of Islamic regimes such as Pakistan's!
Am I correct in calling this tax of Mr. Obama's a "jizya" tax? And, by the way, I think we can all now safely assume that Mr. Obama is indeed a Muslim (it's on record that he practiced Islam til age eleven, an age after which it is impossible to officially convert from Islam to another religion; there's no evidence either that Mr. Obama ever converted to Christianity nor the infamous "preacher" Jeremiah Wright).
Even if Pakistan's rulers DID give us our 30 billion in tax monies back (ha ha), Islam already has plans to fleece us again (and again and again etc.). Just ask our Islamic American presidential candidate.
I haven't heard anything about this proposed donation to the U.N. Are you sure? Even if you are not sure, there is plenty there to be hair-raisingly worrisome. I know he has talked of sending another $50 billion to sub-Saharan Africa, after the $400 billion (see William Easterly, himself once a devout believer in foreign aid to countries incapable of making proper use of it, or even allowing it to get to the intended beneficiaries, but a believer no longer) that Western countries have already sent thither. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama thought the way to a Muslim's heart is through contiued, and ever-increasing, amounts of disguised Jizyah. But in this respect, is he any different from so many others?
No.
It's called the Global Poverty Act, 845 billion over a few years. Obama was the spearhead of this bill in the Senate...
The Global Poverty Act? Now it has become the responsibility of Americans, who work much harder, and often lead much less relaxed lives in every respect, to shell out money to solve the insoluble, Global Poverty? And then what? Having "solved" that problem, to see the birth rates continue to soar throughout the Islamic countries, and sub-Saharan Africa, where the huge families will, of course, continue to guarantee a constant lowering of living standards, and we, who carefully limit our own families, often out of reasons of expense, will continue to shell out, indefinitely? Is that the idea? When did the one-off Marshall Plan, designed to accomplish a specific aim -- the resurrection of Western Europe, after World War II, in order to create strong allies for the United States against the Soviet Union and its satellites -- metastasize into some kind of permanent policy? There should be no foreign aid, save that given, here and there, to states who are full-fledged allies in the war against the Jihad. And that's it.
McCain did say last night that he stop giving money to our enemies, but im sure his list of enemies is a little different then mine and yours.
Despite that I think he is 100% better then the alterative.
I'm glad he mentioned the dodgy tax dealings of Asian Muslims in the USA and UK. I used to live in a heavily infested Muslim neighbourhood in the uk, and you know what, no one would take a cheque, even with a cheque guarantee card, I wonder why?
The taxi drivers should be brought to book. I don't think this is just Muslim Asians either, I think asians generally are this way inclined. Take take take, and then nip off to the National Health Service.
I suspect its not even investigated.
Hugh, could you point the way for us to see the Benazir Bhutto Youtube videos on Kashmir? I can't find them.
Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNLYWzZxmIU
Thanks for the heads up. Excellent how easily the term jihad, mujahideen, etc. pass from the lips of even the most fashionable of Muslims.
NEWSFLASH!! Spencer on Savage RIGHT NOW!!
POTUS made two terrorist countries his "allies" in his phony war. That way, he could make his masters in Riyadh happy. Then, ehe includes Pakistah, the other terrorist country as his ally. Finally, he gives America's tax-dollars to America's killers. All because "Saudis are Our (Bush family) friends".
And Americans believed he meant "America's" friends. Heck. all POTUS needs Americans is for votes. After that, he has America tax-dollars to give to whoever he wants, includinng killers. Like he said before the 2000 elections. All that matters in Washington, are VOTES and MONEY.
Too bad, Americans wern't paying attention.
Pakistan came very close to becoming a failed state a couple of times in the past. Every time they got bailed out by billions in jizya. The last time was just before 9/11. By joining in the anti-terror war (after almost a week of agonizing) the dollars poured in and they were saved by the bell. 9/11 was fortuitous for Pakistan in this respect.
As for the sharp tax practices of South Asians, this is a habit acquired after decades of living under lefty regimes at home, the Nehru-Ghandis in India and Bhuttos in Pakistan. Won't be surprised if you find this trait in Swedes and Russians too.
Huge the viedo are phony from the Hindist Terrorist group called RAW.
There is nothing in the US constitution that calls for 'foreign aid'...
Who do you trust...
Global Poverty Act...Obama's baby...$845 billion to be handed to the UN to distribute to the 'needy'.
This is a modern day variation of 'Robin Hood', to take/steal from the rich, and even from the poor, to give needy people elsewhere.
In his role as 'Robin Hood', will President Obama have any influence as to just where the UN distributes this money? His home away from home is Kenya. His muslim family is there, one of his brothers gets by on a dollar a month, his friend and (cousin) Odinga, also a muslim, would probably volunteer to distribute the funds to needy Kenyans, other muslims.
With just the right squeeze here or there Prez Obama can end poverty in Kenya...for muslims. This in itself is not a bad thing, but he want's to use our money to do it, and it's not going to be voluntary.
I don't know that Obama is going to show this kind of favoritism, but as President, all the ingredients for favoritism are there...This is what happens when you give a liberal a blank check...Bush has been very liberal with your money, but Obama will surpass him.
Who do you trust? Obama? Get a second or a third job...Those needy people elsewhere need your money....
Here is something that practically everybody knew growing up in small town Illinois, You cannot BUY friends.
Alert
You are mistaken if you think Bush was the first to start with giving foreign aid to the Saudis, we have been giving them our cash for well over 20 years.
"Here is something that practically everybody knew growing up in small town Illinois, You cannot BUY friends."
-- from a posting above
In general, no. But sometimes, suggests none other than Robert Frost, a little company at the close, even if "boughten," can be desirable. Think of the tradition, in Europe, of the dame de compagnie. Here is a stanza from
Frost's immortal poem (as Randall Jarrell called it; I am merely seconding the motion) "Provide, Provide":
"Better to go down dignified,
With boughten friendship at your side
Than none at all. Provide, provide!"
You can decide for yourself, upon reading the complete text of the poem, how much this was tongue-in-cheek, and how much wasn't. He was a poet and a practical man, was Robert Frost.
You are mistaken if you think Bush was the first to start with giving foreign aid to the Saudis, we have been giving them our cash for well over 20 years.
Posted by: Bar at September 6, 2008 11:37 AM
Bar,
Whule I agree with you, your point is neither here nor there. Bush family took Saudi corruption to a whole new level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7flIXdSV8
... and since Americans were murdered by Bin Ladens on 9/11, Bush / Bin Laden ties should be investigated.