There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that,
relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that
country's disaster relief.

Several posters have opined thoughts similar to the following:

"A lot of commentators are saying that Pakistan is a country that spends
billions on its military and has enough money to fund nuclear weapons,
and therefore it should reassess its spending priorities rather than
expect foreign countries to save its people from cholera and starvation
while it continues to spend 40% of its GDP on weapons and less than 1%
on public health.

UNICEF has been saying the same thing for years and years: Pakistan lets
hundreds of thousands of its children die of diarrhoea every year
(floods or no floods) in favour of playing expensive and dangerous war
games. The difficulty in getting people to pony up financial aid
reflects ordinary human disgust at the idea of rewarding this."

A reasonable thought?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/22/895204/-Why

Oh...boating related...lack of boats, flooded rivers, et cetera.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:52:54 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote:

There's a pretty lively discussion going on at KOS about the fact that,
relatively speaking, little aid is flowing to Pakistan to help with that
country's disaster relief.

Several posters have opined thoughts similar to the following:

"A lot of commentators are saying that Pakistan is a country that spends
billions on its military and has enough money to fund nuclear weapons,
and therefore it should reassess its spending priorities rather than
expect foreign countries to save its people from cholera and starvation
while it continues to spend 40% of its GDP on weapons and less than 1%
on public health.

UNICEF has been saying the same thing for years and years: Pakistan lets
hundreds of thousands of its children die of diarrhoea every year
(floods or no floods) in favour of playing expensive and dangerous war
games. The difficulty in getting people to pony up financial aid
reflects ordinary human disgust at the idea of rewarding this."

A reasonable thought?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/22/895204/-Why

Oh...boating related...lack of boats, flooded rivers, et cetera.

well they do have shari'a. that probably gives them comfort as they
watch their children die.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:17:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:12:52 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:52:54 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/22/895204/-Why

Oh...boating related...lack of boats, flooded rivers, et cetera.

well they do have shari'a. that probably gives them comfort as they
watch their children die.

****'m they are just Muslims, huh?

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

bull****. for example, we were afghanistan's largest donor BEFORE 9/11

how'd that work out?

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:16:30 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:02:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
r.

bull****. for example, we were afghanistan's largest donor BEFORE 9/11

how'd that work out?

How many Afghanis were in on the planning or execution of 9-11?
Zero

wrong. ever hear of the taliban? they're pashtuns. about 40% of
afghanis are pashtun

oh. you didnt know that.

The Germans had as much to do with 9-11 as Afghanistan.

really? bin laden was bankrolling the german govt?

The major planning was done in Germany and Spain.

irrelevant. it was done with the cooperation of the taliban

you just have a sympathy for nazi fascists

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:32:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:26:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:16:30 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:02:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
r.

bull****. for example, we were afghanistan's largest donor BEFORE 9/11

how'd that work out?

How many Afghanis were in on the planning or execution of 9-11?
Zero

wrong. ever hear of the taliban? they're pashtuns. about 40% of
afghanis are pashtun

oh. you didnt know that.


I certainly didn't know the Saudis who perpetrated 9-11 were Pashtun
They were Sunis. But you ignore that.

uh...osama bin laden?

he is saudi. and he was in afghanistan

khalid sheikh mohammed? captured in pakistand...

but you ignore that.

after all, they only killed 3000 americans.

The Pashtun don't care about anything but getting us out of Pakistan.

no one gives a **** what they think.

For that matter you told me, Bin Laden only wanted to get us out of
Saudi Arabia.

it was none of his ****ing business. he's another fascist imperialist
murderer...the kind that warms the cockles of your heart.


The Germans had as much to do with 9-11 as Afghanistan.

really? bin laden was bankrolling the german govt?

Now you are inventing things. Bin Laden was "bankrolling" Afghanistan?

guess who ran afghanistan?

a group known as the 'taliban'. and guess who bankrolled them?

oh. you didn't know this



The major planning was done in Germany and Spain.

irrelevant. it was done with the cooperation of the taliban

you just have a sympathy for nazi fascists

You seem to be the nazi here. You want the genocide of all Muslims.

i dont give a **** about them or their ignorant religion. they're just
a bit more ignorant and barbaric than the murderous christians.

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.
--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

In article ,
says...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.


Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.


Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that
China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly
wouldn't go around calling others morons.

On Aug 23, 3:49*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.

Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say..

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes?

Dip**** idea.