”
In light of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in harboring Osama
bin Laden, should the United States eliminate financial aid?
”
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
“In light of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in harboring Osama bin Laden, should the United States eliminate financial aid?” Yes: 3 No: 9
-
Karen Anderson: “Not yet. I will let Obama decide when we no longer need Pakistan. I anticipate a shakeup after this latest debacle.”
-
Dave Appling: “At least, not yet. We must learn far more before taking such a far-reaching decision. I certainly believe that Pakistan’s ISI (Interservice Intelligence) must have known, but did President Zardari and his cabinet? I have no idea. This is no casual decision, and there is far too much that we don’t yet know. ‘Alleged’ is indeed the operative word.”
-
Bert Berson: “No. I would increase it a bit but require much more transparency in its allocation and use. The U.S. believes that money is being used for nuclear weapons and dealing with the supposed threat from India.”
-
Chris Bryant: “No, elimination would probably result in ties being severed, but a reduction would be appropriate.”
-
Bob Chidester: “Probably not. There are undoubtedly various rogue elements and quislings in the Pakistani government who aided Osama bin Laden just like there are similar traitors operating in our own government. Until further evidence proves otherwise, the full Pakistani government should be given the benefit of the doubt on this issue. I prefer we eliminate financial aid to a number of other governments long before we do so to Pakistan. For example, it doesn’t make sense to give $900 million to The Palestinian Authority (as this current administration has pledged) so they can use this money to kill more Israelis.”
-
David Cohen: “No, but we need to change the rules on how they get the check. I would suggest a pay for performance plan, where the Pakistan government has to continually prove that it is worthy of the billions in financial aid.”
-
Julian Mancias: “No. Pakistan is still an important ally for the U.S. in the Middle East. Plus, they have nuclear weapons.”
-
Henry Miller: “Yes! But then, what’s another $10 billion among friends, particularly when our economy is in such wonderful shape? Or how about putting Pakistan on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ plan and base the amount of financial aid they receive on the value they provide. Once again, Marketing 101.”
-
Jeff Nunes: “Immediately, no. But, there needs to be a serious reevaluation of our relationship with that government, and what if any national interests continuing that relationship or providing them aid serves.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “No. Pakistan is the route for supplies for the U.S. military’s Afghanistan war effort; so long as that effort continues, we must maintain our relationship with Pakistan. Beyond that, there are many other reasons for maintaining a good relationship with this nuclear state.”
-
Jeff Smith: “Absolutely! Not only should we eliminate financial aid, but we should never have given any to begin with. In fact, we should stop financial aid to all countries and worry about our own financial problems here at home.”
-
Steve Staloch: “Yes. There are alternatives to the strategic military value Pakistan provides, and we do nothing but feed this terrorist-harboring country’s foreign aid addiction if we turn our heads to the clear and present danger they present. This is dejà vu of our support of the corrupt regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan; if we fail to hold them accountable for aiding and abetting our sworn enemies, we will inevitably be faced with prolonged and agonizing military action.”Vote in
