Forums | MacLife

From: Yahoo! News

Nothing like showing your support for the War on Terrorism by giving $3B dollars of tax-payer money to a shaky nuclear state whose government was put in place by a military coup. Wait... since we're in a giving mood, let's also cancel their $1B worth of outstanding loans.

That sound you just heard was everyone in India just crossing George W. Bush off of their Christmas card list this year.

Man, that's outrageous on the part of America.

Also, didn't Pakistan let us use airbases, or something? If we left them alone, they might have gone Bin Laden on us...

I wouldn't say they let us, so much as I'd say we paid $4B dollars for the honors.

Look, I'm no fan of the current administration, but this is the way foreign policy works. Musharraf took a huge political risk when he supported Washington after 9.11, and a [/i]massive[/i] gamble when he supported Washington in the war in Afghanistan -- and he continues to support the US (and the West) to this day.

Remember the Iraq war, when none of Iraq's neighbors (save Kuwait) would support Bush. But Musharraf, whatever one thinks of him, had the balls to stand with Washington.

So the guy risks not only his career but his country (fundamentalists were calling for a revolution after 9/11), and when the financial equivalent of a couple of stealth bombers is tossed their way, you all kick and scream?

"Wonderful. Americans are homeless, unemployed, without access to medical care even with jobs, underpaid, etc.

Seniors choose between food and medications.

Public education funding is abysmal.

Let's give our money to foreign governments!"

But there's plenty of money to build and maintain prisons and the 2 million American's who are sitting in prison. You can already figure that number will rise as of 2004. Plenty of funding for all involved in incarceration but not enough money for education, oh, the irony of it all.

Too bad Pakistan doesn't have a booming heroin trade like Afganistan. Then again, they would still get the 3 billion for thier epidemic.

But wait!

Anyone know if the F-16 is nuclear capable?

Ahh, nothing like pissing off India for no good reason.

"Mommy, where's daddy?"
     "Sorry, he won't be coming home... anymore."
"Why not?"
     "Because terrorists struck America..."
"Why?"
     "3 billion was too much money to help Pakistan fight terrorism and stop the men that hurt daddy."

The US had terrorists too... hell, the last place I lived I could see one of the airports in the distance were a 9-11 terrorist trained. However, neither the US nor Pakistan 'harbor' terrorists... at least not willingly. (I don't want to get into a debate again on what "harboring" is)

Since when is Paki derogatory? I see/hear it used all the time by people from that region.

Since when is Paki derogatory?

Near as I can tell, about the 1960's and 1970's.

A simple Google search reveals that "Paki" is classified in the Oxford English Dictionary as a slang term which is racially offensive and in 1990 was the tenth most offensive word in Britain. It is more of a British thing than an American thing, but nevertheless it's a bad idea to refer to your foreign allies with derogatory terms.

R.I.P., this thread; died of old age.

How many pages did you flip back to ressurect this thread? Just curious.

How many pages did you flip back to ressurect this thread? Just curious.

Quit filling this topic with off-topic spam, please.