NationStates Jolt Archive

I say that the groups should then completely pull out of those areas while passing out pamphlets explaining why.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-25T140947Z_01_ISL62111_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-AID.xml&archived=False&src=072506_1212_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters


By Waheed Khan

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Muslim clerics in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province want local authorities to expel all women working for international relief agencies in earthquake affected areas by the end of this month.

The clerics accuse the women, including Pakistanis employed by foreign non-government organizations (NGOs), of dressing improperly, mixing with men and drinking alcohol, which is banned in Islamic Pakistan.

LMAO!!!

That is so funny!

I say that the groups should then completely pull out of those areas while passing out pamphlets explaining why.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-25T140947Z_01_ISL62111_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-AID.xml&archived=False&src=072506_1212_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters


By Waheed Khan

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Muslim clerics in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province want local authorities to expel all women working for international relief agencies in earthquake affected areas by the end of this month.

The clerics accuse the women, including Pakistanis employed by foreign non-government organizations (NGOs), of dressing improperly, mixing with men and drinking alcohol, which is banned in Islamic Pakistan.
Ok, no more aid for Pakistan.

Why are you looking into the mouth of that horse?

Ok, no more aid for Pakistan.
I say we continue giving aid...exclusively to Pakistani women.

I say we continue giving aid...exclusively to Pakistani women.


I say we make aid conditional on the receiving Government taking a tough anti-Shari'a stance.

I say we make aid conditional on the receiving Government taking a tough anti-Shari'a stance.
Ideally, I'd prefer that the US not have any dealings with any nation that refuses to recognize complete equality between men and women...but then we'd be unable to have any domestic economic activity...:P

Ideally, I'd prefer that the US not have any dealings with any nation that refuses to recognize complete equality between men and women...but then we'd be unable to have any domestic economic activity...:P


*grin*

There's things we CAN do and things we CAN'T.

And on the other side: there's things we oughta, and 'oughta' to such a degree that any excuse not to do it is a crime all by itself.

One of those 'oughtas' is the imperative to comfront and attack Shari'a wherever it rears its head.

I say that the groups should then completely pull out of those areas while passing out pamphlets explaining why.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-25T140947Z_01_ISL62111_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-AID.xml&archived=False&src=072506_1212_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters


By Waheed Khan

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Muslim clerics in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province want local authorities to expel all women working for international relief agencies in earthquake affected areas by the end of this month.

The clerics accuse the women, including Pakistanis employed by foreign non-government organizations (NGOs), of dressing improperly, mixing with men and drinking alcohol, which is banned in Islamic Pakistan.

Well... Can't say I'm surprised by this turn of events.

*grin*

There's things we CAN do and things we CAN'T.

And on the other side: there's things we oughta, and 'oughta' to such a degree that any excuse not to do it is a crime all by itself.

One of those 'oughtas' is the imperative to comfront and attack Shari'a wherever it rears its head.
No argument here, if we're talking about "national" aid. However, I still think it would be good for organizations to provide aid exclusively to the women who live under Shari'a.

I say that the groups should then completely pull out of those areas while passing out pamphlets explaining why.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-25T140947Z_01_ISL62111_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-AID.xml&archived=False&src=072506_1212_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters


By Waheed Khan

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Muslim clerics in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province want local authorities to expel all women working for international relief agencies in earthquake affected areas by the end of this month.

The clerics accuse the women, including Pakistanis employed by foreign non-government organizations (NGOs), of dressing improperly, mixing with men and drinking alcohol, which is banned in Islamic Pakistan.

The leader of the Muslim council of Britain wants non-muslims in the UK to start having islamic-style arranged marriages. Christian Conservatives want state governments not to issue same-sex marriage licences in the US. Doesn't the idea of a pamphlet saying "We're pulling out all our aid because a muslim cleric asked the provincial government to pull out women volunteers" sound even faintly riduculous?

Newsflash: pretty much every religion in every country wants their governments to follow their religious agenda.

In America, the Republicans have conned the Religious into thinking they're in charge, when in fact all the promises made have come up empty. Nothing will change in that regard.

In Pakistan, the Clerics have more power than their dictator-for-life President that rules the country.

I say we continue to give aid as long as it is desperately needed and it is much more a relief to suffering rather than an unwelcome intrusion on their culture.In the meantime let the clerics spout what they will and try not to stir them up needlessly.

In America, the Republicans have conned the Religious into thinking they're in charge, when in fact all the promises made have come up empty.
Really? Because, as an American woman, I can personally assure you that religious fundamentalists are getting their way on a lot of issues.

For instance, they have made it essentially impossible for many American women to receive legal medical procedures related to reproductive health.

They have blocked the FDA approval of several medications that could save my life, for no reason other than religious opposition to the medications.

They spend millions of taxpayer dollars funding organizations that blatantly lie to women about abortion and reproductive health care.

They spend even more money spreading false information about sex to young people, and they do it via the public schools that are also funded by taxpayer dollars.

They have pulled federal funding from organizations that provide women with information about contraception and abortion.

They have successfully enshrined sex discrimination in 19 state constitutions.

They have passed numerous laws that protect rapists and child molesters while violating the rights of rape victims. One passed just the other day.

Believe me, the religious right is getting lots of handouts, and every single one comes at the expense of other citizens' rights.

Really? Because, as an American woman, I can personally assure you that religious fundamentalists are getting their way on a lot of issues.

For instance, they have made it essentially impossible for many American women to receive legal medical procedures related to reproductive health.

They have blocked the FDA approval of several medications that could save my life, for no reason other than religious opposition to the medications.

They spend millions of taxpayer dollars funding organizations that blatantly lie to women about abortion and reproductive health care.

They spend even more money spreading false information about sex to young people, and they do it via the public schools that are also funded by taxpayer dollars.

They have pulled federal funding from organizations that provide women with information about contraception and abortion.

They have successfully enshrined sex discrimination in 19 state constitutions.

They have passed numerous laws that protect rapists and child molesters while violating the rights of rape victims. One passed just the other day.

Believe me, the religious right is getting lots of handouts, and every single one comes at the expense of other citizens' rights.

Don't forget the weird texas dildo ban.

*grin*

There's things we CAN do and things we CAN'T.

And on the other side: there's things we oughta, and 'oughta' to such a degree that any excuse not to do it is a crime all by itself.

One of those 'oughtas' is the imperative to comfront and attack Shari'a wherever it rears its head.
wow,you mind if i copy that down as a quote?It's catchy.

Really? Because, as an American woman, I can personally assure you that religious fundamentalists are getting their way on a lot of issues....

They have blocked the FDA approval of several medications that could save my life, for no reason other than religious opposition to the medications.

The "Right" to an abortion aside, what meds did they deny? I'd be curious. And about those "bans".... do you honestly think they'll stand up in Court? Nope.

Outside of Abortion (which is still legal) and Gay issues (which won't survive a court challenge), I can't think of anything which punishes women like Islamic Law. Unless you're a seriously Orthodox Jew....

The "Right" to an abortion aside, what meds did they deny? I'd be curious. And about those "bans".... do you honestly think they'll stand up in Court? Nope.

Outside of Abortion (which is still legal) and Gay issues (which won't survive a court challenge), I can't think of anything which punishes women like Islamic Law. Unless you're a seriously Orthodox Jew....

You know, not even orthodox judaism goes as far as Islamic law. The more orthodox among us still don't make their women wear veils and stone them to death.

Ideally, I'd prefer that the US not have any dealings with any nation that refuses to recognize complete equality between men and women...but then we'd be unable to have any domestic economic activity...:P

Exactly. If these people want to continue living in the 9th century, they are more than welcome to it.

You know, not even orthodox judaism goes as far as Islamic law. The more orthodox among us still don't make their women wear veils and stone them to death.

I should have narrowed it to divorce decrees, unless I'm mistaken. It's been awhile since I bothered with it.

Ok, no more aid for Pakistan.

Really?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/37133.pdf
Total U.S. economic and militaryassistance to Pakistan from 1947-
2003 was just above $14 billion. Actual U.S. assistance to Pakistan in FY2002 was just above $1 billion, up substantiallyover the $3.5 million for FY2001 (excludingfood aid). For FY2003, Congress allocated about $295 million for Pakistan in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7). In April 2003, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-11) allocated $200 million in additional security-related assistance to Pakistan. The current estimate for total FY2004 aid stands at $385 million. In June 2003, President Bush vowed to work with Congress on establishing
a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan. Annual installments of $600 million each are meant to begin in FY2005 and be evenlysplit between militaryand economic aid. When additional funds for development assistance, law enforcement, and other programs are included, the aid request for FY2005 is $700 million (see Table 1, below). In July2004, the House passed the Foreign Operations FY2005 Appropriations bill (H.R. 4818). The bill would establish a new base program of $300 million for militaryassistance for Pakistan, but allocates only half of that amount while authorizing the President to transfer the remainder from unobligated balances of funds under previous appropriations Acts. The bill also authorizes Pakistan to use up to $200 million in Economic Support Funds to further reduce Page 18
IB94041 10-08-04 * The Agricultural Export Relief Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-194) allowed U.S. wheat sales to Pakistan after July 1998. The India-Pakistan Relief Act of 1998 (in P.L. 105-277) authorized a one-year sanctions waiver exercised by President Clinton in November 1998. The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79) gave the President permanent authority after October 1999 to waive nuclear-test related sanctions applied against Pakistan and India. On October 27, 1999, President Clinton waived economic sanctions on India (Pakistan remained under sanctions as a result
of the October 1999 coup). The Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Appropriations Agencies Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-429; Section 597) provided an exception under which Pakistan could be provided U.S. foreign assistance funding for basic education programs. (See also CRS Report
RS20995, India and Pakistan: Current U.S. Economic Sanctions.)
CRS-15 Pakistan’s concessional debt to the United States. The Senate passed this bill in September 2004, along with S.Amdt. 3694, which would require the President to report to Congress on education reform efforts in Pakistan.

Congress also has appropriated significant funds to reimburse Pakistan for its support of U.S.-led counterterrorism operations. In April 2003, the Emergency Wartime SupplementalAppropriationsAct,2003 (P.L. 108-11) provided that$1.4 billion in additional defense spending may be used for payments to reimburse Pakistan and other cooperating nations for their support of U.S. militaryoperations. The Asian Development Bank reported that Pakistan received $581 million in U.S. logistics support for the latter half of 2003, an
amount equal to 38% of Pakistan’s total defense expenditures during that period. In November, a presidential request for emergencyFY2004 supplemental fundingbecame P.L. 108-106. This law made available $1.15 billion for continuing reimbursements. P.L. 108- 106 also provided that up to $200 million in FY2004 Economic Support Funds maybe used for the further modification of direct loans and guarantees for Pakistan. In July 2004, this
amount was used to reduce Pakistan’s concessional debt to the United States by $495 million, leaving a balance of some $1.3 billion.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/pakistan-requests-13b-weapons-package/index.php
In May 2005, Pakistan placed an order for 8 US Navy surplus P-3C aircraft instead, as well as six 20mm Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems for point defense on its ships and at least 60 Harpoon anti-ship Missiles and 300 AIM-9L Sidewinder air-air missiles. The total orders would reportedly be worth a total of $1.3 billion.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/ahoy-pakistan-requesting-150-harpoon-missiles/index.php
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency informed Congress of a request from Pakistan for 50 UGM-84L (submarine-launched), 50 RGM-84L (surface-launched), and 30 AGM-84L (air-launched) Block II Harpoon missiles; 5 Encapsulated Harpoon Command Launch Systems; 115 containers; missile modifications; training devices; spare and repair parts; technical support; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; technical data and publications; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $370 million.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/pakistan-requests-115-m109a5-selfpropelled-howitzers/index.php
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of 115 M109A5 155mm self-propelled howitzers as well as spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, Quality Assurance Team, U.S. Government logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. This equipment is considered 'long supply' and is no longer utilized by the U.S. Government.

Pakistan currently operates earlier model M109A2 self-propelled howitzers and will use this new procurement to re-equip existing units and retire older artillery pieces. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $56 million.

And the proposed sale of F-16s which would give the P***s BVR capability - a capability that they currently do NOT have (which prevented their air force from participating in the Kargil war).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060703/pl_nm/arms_pakistan_usa_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush Administration said on Monday that it planned to sell Pakistan up to 36 advanced F-16 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in a weapons package that could be worth more than $5 billion.

The proposed sale of 18 new "Fighting Falcon" fighters with an option for 18 more demonstrates the United States' commitment to a long-term relationship with Pakistan, White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

The State Department said it was part of a drive to broaden a strategic partnership with Pakistan and advance U.S. interests in South Asia.

The new F-16 C/D Block 50/52 aircraft would be used for close air support in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism:rolleyes: [because, as you all know, F-16s are terribly needed to catch Osama ], among other things, the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a notice to Congress. The agency, responsible for government-to-government arms sales, said the fighters would be worth $3 billion if all options were exercised.

"This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping an ally meet its legitimate defense requirements," the Pentagon said in the notice.

The proposed sale includes upgrades for Pakistan's fleet of 34 earlier model F-16s and a support package for up to 26 refurbished F-16s that Pakistan eventually may buy, Snow said.

These 60 "mid-life upgrade" kits -- which would improve on-board radar and make it possible to carry more precision-guided weapons -- could be worth as much as $1.3 billion, the Pentagon told Congress in one of four related notices dated June 28 and made public on Monday.

Once notified, Congress has 30 days to block such a sale. It is not expected to do so in light of Pakistan's strategic importance to the United States. Consultations with Congress have been under way since last year, Snow said.

In March 2005, the United States said it would resume sales of F-16s to Pakistan after a 16-year break intended to sanction Pakistan for its nuclear program.

Formal notification coincided with initial votes in Congress for the administration's plan to create a broad nuclear cooperation agreement with India, Pakistan's archrival, that reverses decades of U.S. policy.

Pakistan initially had asked about buying as many as 75 new F-16s and 11 refurbished ones, Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's security cooperation agency, told Reuters in May 2005. The deal was scaled back after the October 8, 2005, earthquake that killed more than 73,000 people.

U.S. weapons that would equip the F-16s include 500 AIM-120C5 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles and 200 AIM-9M-8/9 "Sidewinder" heat-seeking missiles, both built by Raytheon Co., as well as 500 satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions made by Boeing Co., the notice to Congress said.

More details here
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Unveils_F_16_Package_For_Pakistan_999.html


Let's see how p***s respond.

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow06/riat/riat.htm
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow06/riat/greatful.jpg

The US and UK flags are conspicious by their absence.

Time to give more arms and aid to Musharraf :p

I say that the groups should then completely pull out of those areas while passing out pamphlets explaining why.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-25T140947Z_01_ISL62111_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-AID.xml&archived=False&src=072506_1212_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters


By Waheed Khan

MANSEHRA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Muslim clerics in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier Province want local authorities to expel all women working for international relief agencies in earthquake affected areas by the end of this month.

The clerics accuse the women, including Pakistanis employed by foreign non-government organizations (NGOs), of dressing improperly, mixing with men and drinking alcohol, which is banned in Islamic Pakistan.

Well unless they get the government to back them it wont happen. Is it worse than what the Catholic Missions used (maybe still) to do? We'll give you food to feed your family if you come over to the dark..oops I mean our side. Bribary is hardly a proper way to increase your religious population.

No argument here, if we're talking about "national" aid. However, I still think it would be good for organizations to provide aid exclusively to the women who live under Shari'a.


I'd say that women are not the only victims of Shari'a.

I might as well call for giving aid exclusively to christian male victims of Shari'a?

So: a little it less parochiality in our aid-giving, perhaps
Morality, yes, parochiality, no.

Here's what you do.

Offer aid to a country. If they even mention putting any conditions on the aid, withdraw the offer.

It would work with Pakistan. It would work with Zimbabwe (they won't accept GM food). If they want aid, they'll take the aid we give them.

Here's what you do.

Offer aid to a country. If they even mention putting any conditions on the aid, withdraw the offer.

It would work with Pakistan. It would work with Zimbabwe (they won't accept GM food). If they want aid, they'll take the aid we give them.



Then again, they might impose practical restrictions without ever mentioning 'em.

Fine, but they don't get to pick and choose what they receive or how we deliver it.

To the clerics:

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth you dumbasses.

Fine, but they don't get to pick and choose what they receive or how we deliver it.


Uh-huh. Sure. They could just impose unexplainable burocratic visa-restrictions to aid-givers they don't like - and replace 'em with some follow-my-Fatwa Ayatollah, wot?

It's still the same grain -but now you got to wear a chador before you get to eat it...

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this is 'omg we should stop helping those ungrateful swine' but doesn't it seem a little unfair to punish the average guy on the street for the stupidity of what are generally self-appointed spiritual leaders.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Not only that, but they will not get Festivus off!

Not only that, but they will not get Festivus off!

Let 'em eat bacon stotties.
That'll teach 'em.

Uh-huh. Sure. They could just impose unexplainable burocratic visa-restrictions to aid-givers they don't like - and replace 'em with some follow-my-Fatwa Ayatollah, wot?

It's still the same grain -but now you got to wear a chador before you get to eat it...
Then we pull the aid.

Let 'em eat bacon stotties.
That'll teach 'em.
What's a bacon stottie? I'm assuming it's delicious since it's got the word bacon in it.

Then we pull the aid.

Let me put it like this: the idea of giving aid ( I work at a homeless shelter myself ) is to get food into hungry bellies - pretty much regardless of the obstacles.

What's a bacon stottie? I'm assuming it's delicious since it's got the word bacon in it.

A sliced sarnie with bacon in it. A bacon bun in USian, me supposes.

*pelts you with mushy peas*

Let me put it like this: the idea of giving aid ( I work at a homeless shelter myself ) is to get food into hungry bellies - pretty much regardless of the obstacles.
I work at a charity, too. But I'm not going to force my aid upon people who don't want it.