-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pakistan Leaks CIA Chiefs Name
- Thread starter saelz8
- Start date
- Status
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Sir Fragula said:
One of your degrees? Nice job, I mean that non-sarcastically. GAF is full of intelligent and unintelligent alike, with or without credentials, but you're not obnoxious.
Sir Fragula said:
I'm taking offense to you saying the US has the role of "danger as an untrustworthy ally" sorted out. Not on it's own merit, but by the fact that the rest of the world has its head up its own ass even further than the US does. I elaborated on that with the Utopia comment, but you didn't respond to that.
Sir Fragula said:
I have friends in Asia, but don't know anyone there
. So I won't pretend to know thoughts on the US from there.lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
link? google's not helpingnumble said:
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
I don't agree with his language and feeling that we need to hurt them badly. But I agree that they need to face some punishment for harboring a terrorist on their land.Sir Fragula said:
wolfmat said:
We didn't ask China to undercut Western labor.
If Jintao announced tomorrow that China was going to double its minimum wage, I'd fucking dance in the streets.
Sir Fragula said:
They leaked the name of a person who has many people who want him dead. That's reason enough.
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
They did tell them and they were happyWazzim said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...y-Council-rejoices-at-death-of-bin-Laden.html
Cuban Legend
Member
came to post this... oh wait he's not dead.Banzaiaap said:
nm
Are you sure you're reading my posts?FunkyMunkey said:
It's rare for states with supposedly good relations to operate unauthorised military operations within the territory of their "allies". To the man on the Pakistani street, a trustworthy ally doesn't bomb his fellow citizens in an attempt to enforce an airborne military solution to a criminal problem.
I'm going to assume you're American now, so if you're not then I hope you can still see the relevance... But how would *you* regard the English if we bombed American towns and villages, and set SBS troops to apprehend and kill the IRA members and funders who were active in the US during The Troubles? You'd be outraged.
Not exactly double YoY, though...Puddles said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703849204576302972415758878.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
They're dumb as hell if they really did this. Not that the US would necessarily be in the right for whatever shitstorm of fire will come from it, but just because Pakistan has to know it's gonna happen before they do it. Our gov has proven that they are crazier than shit when it comes to to warfare. Why instigate the crazy dude Pakistan?
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
China 30-40 years ago is a completely different story. I don't think it makes sense to paint the shift towards a manufacturing pool as the rescue of the Chinese by referring to the post-revolution hell._Xenon_ said:
numble: When your choice lies between farming and manufacturing and you're still poor, you're in a de-facto slavery because that choice is an illusion, and the renumeration keeps you alive and breeding, not much more. To spell it out, you're forced into the factories because of the condition gap. Sure you can go back to farming, but why would you? So there you are. This is not a problem restricted to China though, obviously.
I realize this has changed for the better, meaning that there now is headroom after expenses for a range of Chinese families in the manufacturing business, but that only from the perspective of averages, which tells me the hellhole factories are still around. So that would be a wide range of conditions, mostly differing by territory, with conditions improving towards the coast, which is what the WSJ article there also indicates.
Sir Fragula said:
I don't really follow. At best there's mutual distrust, and distrust from Pakistan's neighbours as well. You're casting this as if its a one sided issue.
Pakistan would see the action as untrustworthy, but assuming all the common sense information we have is correct, they have been playing both sides for years, even assuming (generously) that they don;t really know where OBL was hiding.
The US itself also views Pakistan as untrustworthy.
The only other major power in the subcontinent, India, seems to agree with the US position.
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Sir Fragula said:
The only issue with that is, is the hurdle of putting the US in an obstructionary position in regards to the British government. You would have to suppose that domestic law enforcement and international intellgence agencies were considered suspect and compromised.
I know where you are coming from, however, the "special relationship" as one sided and messed up as it can seems at sometimes, makes it not the best example.
The other issue is that, how does the average Pakistani citizen feel about their government's involvement with the US? How much of those billions in aid we give their government is felt by the average Pakistani citizen?
Are they outraged because they legitimately see the US as abusing the relationship with Pakistan, or is it a manifestation of general anti-Western sympathies. Not that those sympathies are undeserved.
I think we're talking about the people in the countries. That is not Pakistan, but Pakistanis.Deku said:
Incredibly incredibly angry. Hell for years now the Pakistani media has been obsessed with US drone attacks carried out on Pakistani soil. Look up Hillary Clinton's visit to the region a year or so ago to see how she gets slammed over and over about the issue.
Pretty much none, most of the 'aid' is used by Pakistan to buy American weapons (lol to the military industrial complex) and almost all of the rest gets siphoned away by corruption.
Oozinator said:
That's fine and good, but terrorists don't exist in idealistic discussions, they're a fact of reality.
Wazzim said:
So harboring a known fugitive (wanted by most countries around the world) for upwards of 5 years in Pakistan would not be breaking international law? What would your solution have been? I guess it would have been to talk it over with Pakistan prior to doing our mission.. despite us knowing that they'd tipped off Al Qaeda leaders previously and that the reason for us acting unilaterally in taking out OBL was because we couldn't run that risk?
The reason why nobody is taking action against the USA is because we killed Osama Bin Laden and everyone wanted him dead, regardless. We didn't go into Pakistan to take action against any military bases. We took a (risky) operation (that paid off) that was limited in scope with the intent of killing OBL. The difference between us and Syria is we are not shooting the citizens in our streets for protesting against our government. Apples and oranges, my friend.
@ numble
I'm glad the standard of living in China is going up, but I'm pretty strongly opposed to U.S. companies moving ANY positions over there. China and India should be building their own industry instead of cannibalizing HR, CS and other jobs from the West.
But honestly, the struggle shouldn't be between the U.S. working class and the Chinese working class; it should be between both working classes and the top 1%. The world has enough to offer that everyone should be able to have a decent standard of living. If we'd stop allocating 90% of the wealth to the top 10%, this might be possible.
I'm glad the standard of living in China is going up, but I'm pretty strongly opposed to U.S. companies moving ANY positions over there. China and India should be building their own industry instead of cannibalizing HR, CS and other jobs from the West.
But honestly, the struggle shouldn't be between the U.S. working class and the Chinese working class; it should be between both working classes and the top 1%. The world has enough to offer that everyone should be able to have a decent standard of living. If we'd stop allocating 90% of the wealth to the top 10%, this might be possible.
But they are not poor, not if you use World Bank or IMF figures about what "poor" constitutes. Again, with your reference to wage differentiation on the coasts compared to inland, you still forget to factor in PPP. Wages are cheaper inland because cost of living is cheaper inland. Have you been to China? When I got very far inland--to the biggest city closest to Pakistan, I was paying 30¢/night to stay in a nice hotel for foreigners.wolfmat said:
You continue to ignore PPP to the peril of your analysis. This post can explain that you can't just look at the converted dollar number to see if someone is poor:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17705767&postcount=63
3dmodeler said:
The friends I have that worked at factories are now working at nicer jobs in Beijing. They have helped support siblings and family go through college. They were not slaves.
I paid $1.50 a night for a hotel in Xian. I'm white as Steve Nash, and Xian is one of the top tourist cities in the country. The cost of living there vs the cost of living in the U.S. is just unfair.
In India I lived for $10/day while sleeping in hotels and paying tourist prices, and it wasn't hard at all. I could have probably cut that in half if I needed to.
You can't compete against that if you're a Western nation. Not when your own room in a 3bd in New York costs $850/month or more.
But how did we get on this tangent?
In India I lived for $10/day while sleeping in hotels and paying tourist prices, and it wasn't hard at all. I could have probably cut that in half if I needed to.
You can't compete against that if you're a Western nation. Not when your own room in a 3bd in New York costs $850/month or more.
But how did we get on this tangent?
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Puddles said:
Wait, you can only say you are as white as Steve Nash if you also play soccer.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
While I realize I could be approaching this from the wrong side, I also have to say that I rarely saw a PPP chart that was accurate. For instance, both Germany and the UK have a much higher PPP than indicated anywhere (especially when you go to a regional resolution, take London, for instance). You can directly compare product prices to confirm.numble said:
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that China has an extreme deviation from the US in PPP. So you seem to have a point, although it's also always hard to go back 10 years and talk about those numbers.
Anyways, in fairness, I'll have to give this one to you.
The slavery point extends to my stance towards paid labour in general, so we won't get onto the same page there, I'm afraid.
Okay, let me ask you this: German intelligence agencies catch wind that Burkhard Garweg, member of the terrorist group Red Army Faction, hides somewhere in Bummstown, Idaho. Considering there's an international arrest warrant for years, it's possible he had some help from local officials, so the best course of action seems to be to take action without informing anyone. Long story short, they send a couple of KSK guys to take him out, maybe killing one or two other guys who might or might not be his bodyguards in the process, and get lost. The next day, the German government gives a press conference, patting themselves on the back for doing such great work and insulting the US in the process. You think that would be legal and a perfectly justified act of self defense?andycapps said:
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
wsippel said:
This is dependent on how obstructionary the US government is. If large parts of the US governement are suspecting of harboring him and obfuscating German attempts to locate him, or refusing to have him extradited.
The issue with Pakistan is how the governemtn conducts itself, for me anyway. Not the incursion per se.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
I'm too lazy to check but this is weird.
I read a few days ago that Obama has named David Petraues (General) as the director of the CIA. I thought this shit was meant to be secret?
Or is the director something else?
I read a few days ago that Obama has named David Petraues (General) as the director of the CIA. I thought this shit was meant to be secret?
Or is the director something else?
Mecha_Infantry said:
Petraeus has no real need to be in the shadows though. Just like Panetta was known world wide. Their jobs, I would imagine, involve a more political element than covert activities. And when I say covert I mean actions needing tradecraft rather than keeping discussions that need to be kept obscured... secret.
br0ken_shad0w
Member
Oozinator said:
About 60 years too late.
BertramCooper
Banned
Pakistan has every right to be pissed about the U.S. performing an operation in their country without their consent, but if they weren't so fucking stupid and corrupt, the U.S. would have been more than happy to let them join in.
BertramCooper said:
That's very true.
But there's another angle too. If you've spent that much money on/in a country and you have an immense presence there (not just intelligence but other guys too) you'd hope to have some influence. Some trustworthy body you can work with. I mean that's the whole concept of a Vetted Unit. Polygraphed, trained, "wined and dined" back in your home country because you, essentially, want a loyal associate.
Whilst "Pakistan" isn't without fault (God, no!) if I was in a position of power in the US I'd be questioning the methodology deployed in the past/present. Has that money just disappeared down a black hole?
I guess it's similar to having political influence for UN voting or anything similar really.
Cryptic Psychedelic
Neo Member
kittoo said:
you know the original poster was being sarcastic as well, right?
Death Dealer
Member
Puddles said:
Cutting off their aide is a good first step.
If they lose it, it's going to be extremely painful.
It's why they are are already spending millions on lobbyists to convince the Congress to not cut off their allowance. How ironic they are using the money we give them to attempt to bribe and cajole us to not take it away.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
To those saying that the US should block aid to Pakistan, who in Pakistan are you trying to punish? The government is corrupt, rich and they are elected in on provincial loyalty. The people in the government won't feel the pinch of aid. Instead the effect will be felt entirely by the already struggling population who are completely divorced from this entire situation. And what lesson will that teach anyone?
I don't think cutting off aid to Pakistan makes much sense. While some of the money is going into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats, it's also funding the development of schools, other educational opportunities and development infrastructure. Over the course of time, by encouraging literacy and creating economic incentives, the pull of extremists and terrorism will eventually decrease, which is exactly the intended aim of this aid. The aid isn't sent as an incentive for the Pakistani government to turn a blind eye to drone attacks. It has an actual structural justification.
I don't think cutting off aid to Pakistan makes much sense. While some of the money is going into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats, it's also funding the development of schools, other educational opportunities and development infrastructure. Over the course of time, by encouraging literacy and creating economic incentives, the pull of extremists and terrorism will eventually decrease, which is exactly the intended aim of this aid. The aid isn't sent as an incentive for the Pakistani government to turn a blind eye to drone attacks. It has an actual structural justification.
Lamel
Banned
As bad as this was on Pakistan's part, many people on gaf are being overly aggressive.
Pakistan has helped capture numerous terrorists (Khalid Shaikh Mohammad for example). It has sacrificed it's own soldiers and efforts into helping the U.S. fight this war on terror, while they could have just put their efforts onto things that more directly improved the country. It has lost numerous civilians to nearly weekly drone strikes and yet they have continued to allow them. Though this was a major fuck up and I don't defend them for it, I don't think people have given Pakistan enough credit either.
Now with comments like "fuck pakistan" and "they have to pay..." etc...it just seems really harsh because the 170 million citizens there were not at fault for this. So many are already living a difficult life there as it is, try to understand that GAF. You guys can say all that you want from your own viewpoints, but you have not the slightest clue of what life in Pakistan is like or what the people's opinions are on issues such as this.
Pakistan has helped capture numerous terrorists (Khalid Shaikh Mohammad for example). It has sacrificed it's own soldiers and efforts into helping the U.S. fight this war on terror, while they could have just put their efforts onto things that more directly improved the country. It has lost numerous civilians to nearly weekly drone strikes and yet they have continued to allow them. Though this was a major fuck up and I don't defend them for it, I don't think people have given Pakistan enough credit either.
Now with comments like "fuck pakistan" and "they have to pay..." etc...it just seems really harsh because the 170 million citizens there were not at fault for this. So many are already living a difficult life there as it is, try to understand that GAF. You guys can say all that you want from your own viewpoints, but you have not the slightest clue of what life in Pakistan is like or what the people's opinions are on issues such as this.
Lance Bone Path
Member
Sounds about right.bill0527 said:
There's no point in punishing all of Pakistan, though. I think this is a little bit like the situation with the Untouchables where there was enough corruption that it made it impossible to fully cooperate with the local law enforcement without risking alerting Al Capone.
Death Dealer
Member
Saadster said:
The people they've lost fighting the war on terror, were often fighting their own domestic enemies as well. It wasn't all done to help the US out of generosity. Basically if we had mutual enemies they helped, if the terrorists in question were only enemies of the US, they acted neutrally, or tipped off the terrorists. The Mumbai terrorist attack in India is widely believed to have been planned and aided by elements within Pakistan's intelligence services. Pakistan supports terrorism.
As for the civilians killed by drones, there have been some massive screw ups and the wrong people were killed. However many other times the civilians were collateral damage from attacks against terrorist. I.E. a drone kills a terrorist but happens to take his wife and kids with him.
Lamel
Banned
Death Dealer said:
Then again, many of the terrorist attacks on Pakistani soil were because Pakistan was assisting the U.S., something to think about.
And whether it is collateral damage or not, it's still not acceptable (and dude really, a terrorist living with his wife and kids?). Most of the civilians were unrelated to the terrorists and completely innocent.
soundscream
Member
Unregistered007
Banned
andycapps said:
Multi-million dollar compound? it would at least have a fucking bed.
My advise for you will be to stop typing with one hand....
aaah you might be wondering how I guess it?
well if you take you thumb out of your ass the shit will eventually stop coming out of your mouth.
ElectricBlue187
Member
With friends like these who needs the Taliban
- Status