Trump Withholds $255 Million in Aid To Pakistan

Pakistan is a nuclear power - why do I find this a bit troublesome.

 

Well yes more than a bit, however Pakistan is firmly in the hands of the military and certainly would not be in Pakistan's best interests for ISIS to seize control, more likely ISIS will increase it's presence in mosques and in particular Balochistan, an area long oppressed by the government despite being one of the largest represented ethnic groups in Pakistan. At least 90% of girls in rural Balochistan are not allowed to go to school, the area is poor and ISIS have at least a billion in the bank... a match made in Jihadi heaven.

 

Good. cut all the so called "aid" off. To everyone, everywhere. It's my money. Reduce it to US controlled and distributed humanitarian missions. Especially the UN. Corrupt self important jokers. I see plenty of evidence that when the country everyone hates stops giving away billions they do just fine.

 

The odd thing, insane really, is that leftists will complain that the US is losing respect around the world while ignoring swill pits like Pakistan, or any 'stan country for that matter.

Only when these backward nations are held to higher standards themselves will conditions change for the better in this world. But instead, as another poster mentioned, the fools and tools would rather sweat themselves into knots about moving a US Embassy to Jerusalem.

 

Hussein certainly did have the inclination. He was highly POed at the US even before Desert Storm and being bombed twice by Clinton.

 

Start with Israel and I'm in. Problem is, an awfully lot of those funds wind up right back in the hands of US corporate interests, US war profiteers, US arms dealers, and US military contractors. It ain't ne'er really been all about helping anyone but ourselves. And often it all blows up in our faces. Saddam and Osama come to mind.

 

If Saddam were inclined to suicidal tactics, he presumably could have unleashed germ warfare on us in the years since the Gulf War. He didn’t.

 

In 1990, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam summoned US Envoy April Glaspie to his office to give her a message for the US President. The whole thing amounted to a rant against the US, and included this threat:

" We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."

Which is exactly what happened 11 years later.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/glaspie.html

 

Lol, are you too trying to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11?

And while you’re bringing up the April Glaspie story, why not tell it all. Hussein also was logging a complaint about Kuwait slant drilling for oil under Iraq. Hussein wanted to know what kind of an American response there would be if all diplomatic efforts to get them to stop failed and he dealt with them militarily. Her State Department response was essentially “nothing”.

 

Nonsense. Saddam never asked Glaspie what the US would do if he attacked Kuwait. Glaspie said the US hoped the issues between Iraq and Kuwait would be settled by all "suitable methods". She then expressed US concern over Iraqs massive troop deployments in the south and asked Saddam what his intentions were.

 

There is plenty of debate over whether Glaspie’s tepid response to Hussein that left him with the impression that the US was indifferent to any military action he might take was her own inadequacy or actual State Department position. But here is a scholarly piece on the subject from a member of the CFR.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0032.pdf

 

Glaspie only said that the US was not taking sides in Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. Saddam showed some seriously poor judgment at times, but he was not a complete idiot, and would not have taken that statement to mean the US would allow an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait.

 

Indeed, He did not think that. He just understood that not taking sides meant not taking sides, remaining neutral, staying out of it etc., but what actually happened was that the US immediately took the side of Kuwait, shrug.

 

Not taking sides on the issues does not mean not taking sides if one side attacks the other. Saddam never took it that way. This silly idea was created by the US MSM.

 

No, that’s the point that scholars at the CFR have made, this whole problem was created by April Glaspie, whether of her own failure or official State Department position is being argued.

 

That is just so silly. Saddam did not ask for a green light to invade Kuwait, and nothing Glaspie said could possibly be interpreted as giving a green light to an invasion of Kuwait. Terik Aziz in an interview on US TV was asked about this absurdity, and he said Saddam's talk with Glaspie had nothing to do with the decision to attack Kuwait. Saddam would never have based such a decision on a few words from a US Envoy. She had no authority to give US permission for a war and he was fully aware of that.

 

No, he didn’t ask for a green light, and I never claimed that he did, shrug.

A snippet from an article that I recommend you read.

In short, I think it is clear from the cable that the United States did unwittingly give a green light to Saddam, and certainly no more than a barely flickeringyellow light. Glaspie certainly didn’t make it clear to him what would happen if he used force against Kuwait. This is a case of policy failure but not deterrence failure, in short, because deterrence wasn’t tried in this case. What was needed, however, was a clear and explicit statement that an attack on Kuwait would be met with an American military response. Glaspie never uttered such a statement, and we all know what happened next.

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignp...kileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/amp/

 

Go back to your post #34. You claimed that Saddam asked Glaspie what the US response would be if he attacked Kuwait, and that she said basically "nothing", which is totally false. Saddam asked no such thing.

The source you are quoting is an opinion that is unsupported by any facts. If Saddam thought Glaspie had given him the nod to invade Kuwait he would have used that later in defense of his actions. He didn't.

 

Glaspie failed to inform Hussein that any invasion of Kuwait would result in an immediate military response from the US. And based upon the published transcripts it appears that her response to Hussein’s troops amassed on the Kuwaiti border were parsed by State.

We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

 

Oh, and Hussein faced a kangaroo court. So he had no real defense.

 

There is no way Glaspie could have issued such a warning.

Having no opinion on Arab-Arab issues is not the same as having no opinion when one country invades another.

 

I wasn't talking about his trial. As soon as he invaded Kuwait he would have started claiming that the US had approved it.

 

“The Kuwait issue is not associated with America” And you’re wrong. Glaspie is authorized to issue whatever orders or threats that her superiors commission her to. Which is what I just quoted again. And which comes no where near what actually happened. This was another case of USFP intrigue to produce a desired result.

 

Nice spin there. But the US neither approved or disapproved. Glaspie said that as we’ve told you since 1960, Iraq’s business with Kuwait is not an American issue. You may go on to be obtuse as long as it’s still fun for you.

 

"To produce a desired result"? So you think it was all a conspiracy to get Saddam to attack Kuwait.

Just curious, do you think Elvis is dead yet?