Rebuilding after Pakistan floods could reach $15 bln

[Turborama]

Source: Reuters


* Cost of reconstruction could reach $15 billion
* Full assessment of damage yet to be carried out
* Death toll estimated at 2,000 and still rising
* The floods have "dislocated everything"

By Myra MacDonald -

The cost of rebuilding Pakistan after its devastating floods could exceed $10 to $15 billion, the country's High Commissioner to Britain said on Monday. He said this was a rough estimate because an assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the floods -- which have affected 20 million people -- had yet to be carried out.

But the number gave an indication of the scale of the reconstruction needed after the floods swept away roads, bridges and telecommunications, and destroyed crops for food supplies, exports and cotton for its vital textile industry. "It will take at least five years," High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hasan told Reuters in an interview. Asked about the cost of rebuilding, he said, "I think more than $10 to $15 billion."

Pakistan, already embroiled in a battle against Islamist militants, is appealing for international aid to help it cope with one of the worst natural disasters in its history. The United Nations says only a quarter of the estimated $459 million in international aid needed just for immediate relief has arrived so far.

Hasan said about 2,000 people had died -- earlier estimates put the death toll at 1,600 -- and said this number was expected to rise as people began to die of disease.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67F1S9.htm

[JDPriestly]

1. If they hadn't spent so much on developing nuclear weapons, they

might have the money to take care of this disaster.

Same for us.

[Turborama]

2. Although true, that sort of hindsight doesn't help the millions of people suffering right now

With all due respect, I've read that unsympathetic reply to this monumental catastrophe multiple times now and it's getting really old.

[activa8tr]

3. Yes, I'm sort of tired of some attitudes expressed here, too. n/t

[Posteritatis]

5. Yep. One eighth of the population homeless and people just snark and politicise it. (nt)

[JDPriestly]

11. Actually, I worked for a number of years for a non-profit that served

homeless people. I am not snarking. I am serious. If we didn't spend so much on nukes and military junk (that we just blow up), we could insure that every homeless person had a decent life. Same is true for Pakistan. And India, I might add.

[cosmicone]

6. US, Israel and India would gladly buy the nukes tomorrow

will Pakistan sell to help its people?

[JDPriestly]

9. Excellent idea. We could buy them and help the Pakistani people.

I actually think it would be a great trade. Then we could join with a lot of other countries and agree that we would all get rid of our nuclear weapons in order to help fund aid for catastrophes. I am not being cruel, here. I am talking about countries prioritizing the cost of things like military paraphernalia versus caring for their people.

OK, you have three children who are hungry and very little money. Do you pay for an expensive alarm system or feed your children? It's a question of values and priorities.

[sabrina 1]

15. You've got to be kidding. Sell them to the only country that

ever used them, the one most likely considering their constant threats towards their neighbors, to use them and to their enemy who has nearly come to the brink of nuclear war with them at least three times.

Here's a solution, how about all the countries yu named including Pakistan, who is far less of a threat to the world than the U.S. and its allies, agree to destroy all their nuclear weapons?

Here's a suggestion for you who seem to be obsessed with a failed state in Pakistan. Why don't you try to think of this disaster in terms of the human tragedy rather in terms of your own selfish ideology for a change? Your constant thread-jacking is getting to be very upsetting.

:kick: and rec'd to keep this very important story visible. I see a few heartless creatures have been unrec'ing any thread that provides news about this tragedy.

[cosmicone]

16. The US, India and Israel are not asking for aid but

Pakistan is. Pakistan has a choice, save its people or remain armed to the teeth while its people suffer.

If it was asked to Suze Orman, she would tell Pakistan, "You can't afford it! Sell those useless assets and pay your bills."

[sabrina 1]

18. How much money in aid does the U.S. give to Israel and India

every year? And why should we tax-payers continue to provide billions of dollars in aid to countries that spend it on their nuclear weapons? If Israel can afford to build a huge nuclear arsenal, then why do they need money from the U.S.?

And if India can afford to do the same, why don't they sell their nukes and start feeding and housing and educating their poverty stricken citizens so they don't have to riot for food?

I think Suzie Ormond would agree with me that none of the three countries you mention, can afford to point fingers elsewhere until they clean up their own back yards.

[cosmicone]

20. India gets almost no aid from the US except

a few research projects being conducted by various think tanks and universities.

India can provide for its own population and still grow technologically despite being a poor country. In fact, after the Indian Ocean tsunami, Indian government REFUSED foreign aid and asked it to be sent to poorer countries instead.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-refuses-foreign-aid-to-fight-disaster/articleshow/973923.cms

In fact, India GAVE aid to other countries affected by the tsunami.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has received >78 billion in OVERT aid from the US since 1979 -- where did the money go?

What you forget is that the Indian side of Kashmir had exactly the same floods as the Pakistani side but on a 30% smaller scale. Is India out there pleading for aid?

Despite decades old enmity, four forced wars and hundreds of acts of terror by Pakistan, India opened up its heart and offered aid .. what did Pakistan do?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4506109

[sabrina 1]

22. Wait, I am having trouble following your logic.

You said Pakistan should sell its nukes to take care of its citizens, as it is a poor country.

Now you concede that India is also a poor country but do not demand that they sell their nukes to take care of their citizens. I know how poor India's citizens are. I've seen the footage of the food riots there and know people who have traveled there and seen the poverty of the people. Yet, you do not demand that they sell their nukes and lift their people out of poverty.

If the U.S. gave money to Pakistan it was not in the interests of the people of Pakistan, it was because it benefited the U.S. to do so. And it was probably used exactly as the U.S. wanted it to be used.

[cosmicone]

24. India's poor are being lifted gradually as each year

fewer and fewer people fall below the poverty line. The footage you see in the Western media only depicts images that generate ratings. India is net food exporter. India is one of the top 5 industrialized economies. India's economy (by purchasing power parity statistics of the World Bank) is the fifth largest. India is secular and has strong democratic institutions. The military has never taken over in India and the government has changed hands between parties several times. India has an independent, albeit slow, judiciary. But most of all, India can afford its military and doesn't depend on aid. India doesn't live a high and mighty lifestyle at the expense of its citizens.

As to the US Aid, the GAO reported that Pakistan diverted most of the aid for purposes other than what the aid was for.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/csf_pakistan.html

Musharraf's own memoirs confirm that the funds were diverted to buy weapons against India.

I am afraid you are seeing this issue from just one perspective and not in totality like most of the world is. The world is not interested in strengthening Pakistan further. Pakistan can return or sell its mirages, F16s, P3 orions, C130s, Abrams tanks, nukes, Scorpene submarines and have all the money it needs to help and feed its people.

[sabrina 1]

28. 'India is one of the five top industrialized economies'.

And yet, they are not taking care of their own citizens needs, they spend huge amounts of money on their military which you say they can afford. Yes, at the expense of their citizens. Just like Pakistan.

I am aware of India's history and politics, and do not rely on the Western media for information of what is going on in the world. Your reference to Suzie Ormond tells me you are probably far more indoctrinated by Western media than I am.

I am merely using your own logic and applying it to the countries you named as possible recipients of Pakistan's nukes. Countries that themselves are either NOT taking care of their own citizens needs while spending huge amounts of money on weapons.

By your logic, a country that has citizens in need should not own nukes. Then you shifted the goal posts when I pointed out that this would apply to India, by saying that India is not asking for aid. India doesn't have 25% of its territory under water, nor one tenth of its citizens in imminent danger of death, so your shifted goal post doesn't apply.

And why does India, or Israel need nuclear weapons any more than Pakistan does? Why are you not advocating for all nuclear countries to get rid of their weapons? Why only Pakistan? Israel, eg, has been threatening a nuclear attack on Iran for years, with our own John Bolton urging them to do so immediately.

I consider Israel to be far more of a threat to OUR interests than Pakistan at this point. Because if Israel carries out that threat, what do you think that will do U.S. national security, to our oil supplies and to the blow back we will receive as a result?

Yet, you would give this rogue state, threatening a nuclear attack on another nation even more nukes? I sincerely hope you are never in a position to carry out decisions like this.

As i already said, having considered the ramifications of a failed state in Pakistan, the U.S. will do whatever it can to help the people there. They really have no choice, having been caught by Nature in a situation they never imagined, but should have.

[cosmicone]

30. India IS taking care of its citizens and gradually lifting them out of

poverty with a sustained growth rate of 8-9% pa. Your presumption that India is not is wrong.

Furthermore, India needs to defend itself from threats from Pakistan, a rogue and failed state which has IMPOSED four wars on India, one of them leading to Pakistan's dismemberment. India also has China to worry about and Chinese are already trying to encroach on two of India's states.

India and Pakistan are NOT equal, no matter how much Pakistan wants parity. India is a secular democracy with a bright future, whereas Pakistan is a failed state with nothing to show for itself except terrorism. Countries with similar populations as Pakistan -- i.e. Indonesia, brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, all have shown higher growth rates and far far stronger economies than Pakistan. All of those countries, if faced with a disaster, would attract far more international aid than Pakistan. Why? Pakistan squanders its money on WMDs, is a threat to its neighbors and foments Islamic fundamentalism to be used as state policy.

Israel is an entirely different issue but Israel is a very tiny country with several wars imposed upon it and the very survival of its people is at stake. That doesn't mean I condone all of Israeli policies but at least I can understand where they are coming from.

[OhioChick]

31. "Lifting them out of poverty?"

Guess you didn't get the memo:

17 Aug 2010 12:08:00
India is failing its rural poor with 230 million people being undernourished which is the highest for any country in the world. Malnutrition accounts for nearly 50% of child deaths in India as every third adult between age group15-49 years is reported to be weak due to starvation...

http://english.samaylive.com/regional/jharkhand/676471484.html

[cosmicone]

32. As a percentage of population, that number is decreasing.

It was close to 50% at the time of independence. Now it is about 20%, which is a significant progress.

India is also going to pass a "right to food" law which will reduce that number even more by providing free food to the poor. (And without begging the international community for help if I may add)

[sabrina 1]

37. You need to get off your high horse. India received enormous

amounts of financial aid from the West for decades after Independence. They did not refuse it then, nor should they have as they badly needed it.

And if the country were to suffer a disaster proportional to the current disaster in Pakistan, they would not only be asking for aid, they would be begging for it as would any nation that cared about its citizens.

[cosmicone]

40. The aid received by India was paltry as compared to

what the Brits looted out of India over 200 years.

Furthermore, India may or may not need aid but India will never commit terrorism and kill innocent people like Pakistan does deliberately.

[OhioChick]

26. +1000 Well said! n/t

[OhioChick]

7. The lack of compassion here has been disturbing to say the least. n/t

[JDPriestly]

10. I'm not lacking compassion. I'm saying that governments need to think

compassionately when they make decisions about how to spend their money. It is ridiculous to buy a very expensive van so that you can take our children to school safely when you don't have money saved to take care of them if your house is flooded.

Interestingly, a very ancient bit of wisdom from the Old Testament instructs farmers to set aside grain for the years in which the harvest will be bad. I think the warning is that you will have seven years of abundance and then maybe seven years of lack. We all need to try to plan for that rainy day. The Pakistani governments have not shown good judgment.

And by the way, we are not showing good judgment either. We have known for many years now that baby boomers will not always be able to work and produce. Baby boomers were assured that the government would set aside money to care for their needs -- money that the baby boomers paid into a fund from their paychecks. Now we are being told that there isn't enough money to take care of all of us. We know where the money went -- just look at our enormous military machine, all the mercenaries we hire to say nothing of our overkill of nuclear weapons that have to be maintained. This is an international problem -- bad priorities. And it is due to corruption. In this respect, Obama has not dared to change anything.

[sabrina 1]

43. Well, while you are right about our military machine, you are wrong

about the the money not being there for retiring baby boomers. It is there. That is a rightwing lie. The SS fund will be solvent for decades even if nothing is done at all. Don't fall for the rightwing propaganda about SS. The government DID think ahead to when the baby boomers would retire and it was taken care of. The only way that could happen would be if the money was stolen from the trust fund and not repaid. So far, no one is admitting to that. And if that did happen, we could easily retrieve it by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting the military budget by a few % points.

However, as of now there is no need to worry about the Baby Boomers retiring.

As for Pakistan, it has had some corrupt governments, but that has nothing to do with the people who are victims of this disaster.

[Rebubula]

4. I know, Right???

Just like those stupid poor people in New Orleans who did not save their money to buy a car to leave town. Or at least buy a nice, safe house outside the floodplain.

Just irresponsible.

























:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

8. I was not talking about the individual Pakistanis.

I was talking about the Pakistan government. The U.S. government is helping out in New Orleans. We did not demand a lot of international aid as I recall. We shouldn't be wasting our money on the extreme number of nuclear weapons we developed and maintain either.

[sabrina 1]

14. 'They' would be their military junta government. A government that is no longer

in power finally. But even if it was, what would that have to do with ordinary citizens who have no say in what their government does?

The same could be said about this country when people point out how many Americans die each year for lack of healthcare (tens of thousands). People might say 'so what, if their government wasn't spending so much on wars and their military, they might be able to afford to keep their citizens alive'.

True, but how does that help either the innocent civilians in Pakistan or the innocent citizens of the U.S. who are dying?

The right thing to do is to try to help them even if their governments are corrupt, like ours or theirs, is it not?

[cosmicone]

17. As bloated as the US military spending is, it is not 31% of the GDP

like in Pakistan. (And that is the official number, unofficial number is probably higher because Pakistan frequently inflates it GDP like many nations do)

[Turborama]

12. Maybe this part of the article will make it clearer for everyone why there is more to this...

...catastrophic disaster than at 1st glance. I should have added it to the OP because people often don't go on and read the full articles...

"Failure to provide relief and reconstruction would be exploited by Islamist militants fighting to overthrow the state -- bringing with it instability which would engulf the region."

Edited to put in bold the most important thing for "ignored" (aka "waste of time") to take note of (I don't know what their reply was but they need to consider that fact really seriously). Oh, and to thank them for kicking my threads.

[cosmicone]

13. That is the usual Pakistani nuclear blackmail ...

Give up your money or the nukes will fall in the wrong hands.

It has worked for far too long. It is time for us to say "give us your nukes, missiles, fighter jets, submarines and warships as collateral and then you buy them back when you have repaid us."

Any bank would want a note on your house or your stock portfolio before lending money if you have no income.

[sabrina 1]

19. Pakistani blackmail? I thought that was U.S. propaganda

We have to engage the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan because they might get their hands on Pakistan's nukes. That's our whole raison d'etre for waging that war over there. Are you saying the U.S. is lying?

You're confused. Pakistan is an ally of the U.S. or didn't you know that?

And if a family is the victim of a tragedy they don't depend on banks for help. They depend on their friends and neighbors.

Keep trying though, all you are doing is making yourself look bad, a person willing to let people die because they cannot afford to live. Very progressive of you I must say. I remember when this board had different prnciples, progressive principles and it was rare to see anyone argue that people should be allowed to die because of their ethnicity or politics. What a shame that these kind of morals have found their way into the progressive community.

[cosmicone]

21. I am not confused...

there is a difference.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers11%5Cpaper1029.html

Pakistan has always used the strategy to extract aid from the US because American politicians would rather pay off than nip the Pakistani nuclear threat in the bud by disarming.

Pakistan's "ally" status has been thoroughly refuted by the recent Wikileaks document dump. Our own aid is being funneled by ISI to the Taliban so we are essentially paying to have our own soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Progressive principles notwithstanding, different precautions are needed while helping an injured puppy or kitten versus an injured rattlesnake.

[sabrina 1]

23. Do you really believe that the U.S. was unaware of any

of that information? Considering the wikileaks documents came from the U.S. military. Of course money is being funneled to the Taleban. You were not one of those people who believed we are in Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden, are you? The wikileaks revelations were no surprise to those of us who opposed that war from the beginning, knowing full well that we were being to.

All you are doing is making my argument for me. The U.S. government is no better than the Pakistani government, or any other government for that matter. In fact, because of its power and money it is far more of a threat to the world than Pakistan could ever be or ever tried to be.

Pakistan is an ally of the U.S. exactly how they wanted it to be. This country is in the business of war. How could they justify war if they had no enemies?

Yet, you single out one country of many, many with corrupt governments who lie to their own people, and decide they are not worthy of the world's help in the face of a huge human disaster.

And once again, you conflate the government with innocent civilians, civilians you now compare to rattle-snakes. Disgusting attitude from you.

Edited to add that most thinking observers of U.S. policy in the ME and Afghanistan always believed that U.S. dollars were being funneled to the Taleban and probably even Al Queda, the Government never wanted that information to be revealed and its lies exposed. That is why they were so angry about the wikeleaks revelations.

[cosmicone]

25. This is not about how bad the USA is ...

USA may be bad but usually unintentionally because policies are not thought through for long term consequences. As bad as GW Bush was, I don't think he intended to kill a million Iraqis and 5,000 Americans. He was incompetent and negligent at best, buying a rosy prospect of a quick victory and all was going to be well.

Pakistan is another story. Did you not see the footage of the Mumbai terrorist attacks where civilians were SPECIFICALLY targeted, particularly Americans, British and Jews? That was perpetrated by Pakistan KNOWINGLY.

Nevertheless, how bad the US is or any other countries are is immaterial because the US and the other countries are not asking for aid. Pakistan is, and therefore Pakistan's conduct, diverting of funds for military and its terrorist ethos are RELEVANT.

[sabrina 1]

27. I'm beginning to think you are bit delusional.

George Bush knew exactly what the results of dropping bombs on a city would do the people there. Cheney when asked if it bothered him that innocent would die in Iraq, said 'no, it does not'. Stop being childish, you are failing to make any point here, succeeding only in demonstrating what lengths of fantasy someone will go to to defend their own POV, no matter how irrational.

The U.S. DID ask for help, they begged for help from countries like Pakistan and Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Greece, Turkey and Poland and any other country they thought might assist them in the slaughter of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pakistan reluctantly gave them the help they asked for, and for that they were paid in return. Bush was NOT incompetent, he was a war criminal, knowing exactly what happens when you drop a 500 ton bomb or white phospherous on a civilian population.

Poor, naive George Bush. You reveal yourself. I think this is a first for me. I have never before seen anyone on a progressive forum defend George Bush's war crimes.

And no, it was NOT Pakistan that perpetrated the terrorist attack in Mumbai. It was a terrorist organization, just as Ireland was not responsible for the actions of the IRA.

Pakistan will get the aid it needs because if it doesn't U.S. interests in the region will be adversely affected. And in return, the Pakistani government will make sure that the war supplies they need which go through Afghanistan, will still get to their war zone.

[cosmicone]

29. ISI (Pakistani government) role in Mumbai attacks is clear

There are thousands of links that show this:

http://www.merinews.com/article/isi-involvement-becoming-clear-in-mumbai-attacks/15827163.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5394686.stm

http://www.zimbio.com/Mumbai+Terrorist+Attacks/articles/87_M_V47gQg/investigating+possible+ISI+role+Mumbai+attack

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7890226/India-Pakistans-ISI-had-direct-control-over-Mumbai-attacks.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,474384,00.html

Google is your friend and you can see for yourself that Pakistan and its military/ISI fund, arm, train and direct terrorist outfits to commit terror in India, particularly targeting India's financial centers to discourage foreign investment in India since Pakistan realized that it is a basket case and could never catch up to India and the only policy they have left is try to slow down India's progress through terror. Most in the diplomatic circles know this and believe it. Even President Obama stated this before he was elected.

As to GWB, I agree that he was a war criminal whether through naivete or negligence or incompetence. Cheney was the evil one but I still think of GWB as just stupid. I have no doubt Cheney could sleep at night after having killed his own mother and children for a couple of barrels of oil.

In any event, Pakistan is a terrorist state and that is why people are giving a bare minimum in aid, knowing full well that most of the aid will go to create more terrorism.

Unless you have been at the receiving end of Pakistani terror, you would not know and calling me delusional or other ad hominum attacks do not do justice to your point of view.

[sabrina 1]

35. The Pakistani government not only has denied

that they were in any way involved in the Mumbai attacks, they arrested members of a banned group named by India as being involved in the attacks. The group was banned in Pakistan. That hardly makes the government responsible for their actions. Especially since the new government is not a military government, as Musharaff's was. He is no longer in charge in Pakistan.

Asif Ali Zardari says accusing his country of complicity in India attacks complicates effort to stamp out extremism

Many Indians believe that the Pakistani president, whose wife Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by terrorists, is sincere in wanting to crack down on militants, but suspect that Pakistan's powerful security establishment still backs them.

Ties between India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since 1947, have been improving in recent years. Zardari is keen on better ties, but the Mumbai attacks have sharpened tensions between Islamabad and Delhi.

"We understand the domestic political considerations in India in the aftermath of Mumbai," Zardari said. "Nevertheless, accusations of complicity on Pakistan's part only complicate the already complex situation."

No one disputes that the ISI or elements within it, might not be capable of supporting terrorists. Benazir Bhutto, wife of the current president was assassinated, many believe, with the help of Musharaff. He had ties to terrorist groups, including ties to the Taleban. Yet, the U.S. under Bush used him for their own purposes and protected him from implication in the death of Ms Bhutto.

It is entirely possible that he, not as a Government official, knew about or even helped organize the Mumbai attacks to weaken the new secular government.

But that, even if true, and Robert Fisk and other credible investigative journalists have no trouble seeing him as the cause of Bhutto's death, is a far cry from the current government. And to undermine this new government by blaming them for the Mumbai attacks when in fact they too may well have been a political target of the attacks, is harmful to the future peace between India and Pakistan, which it appears the Indian Government and many of the people of India agree on. And would be playing into the hands of the Military Junta's followers.

The corrupt elements from the Musharaff years did not go away. The U.S.'s backing for them and the financing of the Musharaff government for its own interests, made it impossible for the new government to eliminate them completely.

The CIA here has engaged in rogue operations that were often approved of by the U.S. government, although some elements in the government such as Reagan, without Congress' knowledge, did back some of those actions.

Your broad brush that it was the Pakistani Government is not even agreed upon by the Indian Government.

And none of this has anything to do with the fat that tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with any of it, are facing death if they do not get the help they need.

India has offered to help, much to its credit. Those hard-liners mentioned above are the ones urging the government not to accept it. And, they have managed to rouse up the people against the secular government who themselves did not respond quickly enough to the disaster.

The very worst thing that could happen would be the failure of the current secular government and a retaking of the control by the Military. Which is why, if you really do care about India, you would be urging the world to help this government take care of the situation before the country is back in the hands of Musharaff and his thugs.

[cosmicone]

38. The lone man captured alive in Mumbai and more importantly,

Hadley, a Pakistani American captured by the FBI ADMITTED ISI's involvement. Even the US State Department acknowledged with overwhelming evidence that ISI's role was incontrovertible.

What did you expect Pakistan to do? Come out and say "yeah, we did it?" :rofl: Of course they denied it like they have been all this time. However, the world has concluded that Pakistan is incontrovertibly involved in terrorism. Which is why leaders like David Cameron are coming out and openly saying it.


In my opinion, the worst thing that could happen is Pakistan gets propped up with excessive aid once again to create mischief.

[sabrina 1]

42. Fortunately even as you laugh about the plight of

the people in Pakistan, the world is responding to the disaster, the U.S. has increased its aid and other countries are being urged to follow suit.

You are in the minority thankfully, in this world where people, decent people, can set aside their own prejudices in the face of a disaster such as this.

As for Cameron he has been put in his place by both the Left and the Right in his own country for his remarks. I wouldn't be boasting about this Conservative who has backed himself into a corner as a result of his radical outburst if I were you:

Former Conservative Party leader slams Cameron’s remarks

The British Prime Minister David Cameron faced fresh criticism over his Pakistan terrorism remarks when former Conservative party leader Lord Tebbit accused him of running a sloppy, slap-happy government.

.....

“I call it sloppy, slap-happy government. It is time for some disciplined thought and disciplined action. Being a Prime Minister is a serious business,” Lord Tebbit said.

Sir Menzies who is regularly in touch with senior Liberal democrats members of the coalition government, urged Mr.Cameron to use his aid budget to help repair diplomatic relations.
“The UK Government must use this visit to rebuild bridges with Pakistan. It is not in our interest to be at loggerheads with a country which is so important to the outcome in Afghanistan and so essential to out national security,” he said.

....

“The more generous we can be with aid and assistance with what is now a terrible tragedy, the easier it will be to get on good terms.”

Cameron is an embarrassment to his country. Pakistan is very important to the West so you can forget your dreams of them being abandoned to their fate.

[cosmicone]

44. No one said Cameron was wrong ...

they said he shouldn't have said it so brazenly.

[sabrina 1]

36. Oh yes, and the ISI is not the Pakistani government despite your

attempt to conflate the two, anymore than the CIA is the U.S Government.

[cosmicone]

39. hahahahahahahaha

:rofl:

The military and the ISI ARE the Pakistani government. Zardari is a figurehead who takes orders from Kayani.

[OhioChick]

41. All your posts are like a broken record n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioChick]

34. No shit!

:eyes: