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 8/22/10 5:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, 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.

Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the
people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west?

Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We
are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50
billion give or take.

Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as
a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to
investigate?



Frankly, I think most of the military expenditures on our recent foreign
adventures have been and are a waste of money.

When we finally leave Iraq, no matter when it is, even if it is a decade
in the future, the country will become a shambles and civil war will
break out.

The same is true of Afghanistan.

In the end, we will accomplish nothing in either country, no matter how
much we waste there in terms of personnel and money.

Pakistan is another corrupt failed state and always will be. As is
Bangladesh.

I support the idea of humanitarian aid when and where it is needed, so
long as it is clearly marked in the appropriate language, "A Gift from
the People of the United States of America." I support the idea of using
our military troops to deliver humanitarian aid.

On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, 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.

Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the
people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west?

Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We
are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50
billion give or take.

Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as
a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to
investigate?

--
Is government working for you, or are you working for the government?

On 8/22/2010 2:00 PM, Secular Humanist wrote:
On 8/22/10 5:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 8/22/2010 9:52 AM, 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.

Yep, billions on military and nuclear weapons. But no money for the
people. Do you think the Muslims will thank the west?

Speaking of which, has other Muslim nations ever helped their own? We
are in Canada and the US in debt up the wazoo and Pakistan only owes $50
billion give or take.

Don't we have some of our own problems that could use the money such as
a few decaying and unsafe bridges? Or perhaps some corruption to
investigate?



Frankly, I think most of the military expenditures on our recent foreign
adventures have been and are a waste of money.

I would agree. If we didn't go into Iraq, Saddam might have had anotehr
war with Iran to kill another 500,000 - but better them fight each other
than our people spilling blood for their feuds and cult.

When we finally leave Iraq, no matter when it is, even if it is a decade
in the future, the country will become a shambles and civil war will
break out.

Bet it will revert in less than a year, just like Vietnam.

The same is true of Afghanistan.

Yep. Heroin will flow as soon as the fields yield a crop.

In the end, we will accomplish nothing in either country, no matter how
much we waste there in terms of personnel and money.

Agreed.

Pakistan is another corrupt failed state and always will be. As is
Bangladesh.

Yep. US and Canada are suckers in providing aid as it is also a route
of smuggling of weapons that kill our soldiers.

I support the idea of humanitarian aid when and where it is needed, so
long as it is clearly marked in the appropriate language, "A Gift from
the People of the United States of America." I support the idea of using
our military troops to deliver humanitarian aid.

Send food and materials clearly marked "Humanitarian Aid USA" with the
Red White and Blue. Might as well get credit. Let them know who
helped. And deliver it directly or not at all. None of this middle men
corruption.

--
Is government working for you, or are you working for the government?

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?

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.