Embargo against Pakistan?

Pakistan has been the number one sponsor of state terrorism for like 10 years. And leaking information to reporters that they should not have may be a big game to the boys and girls in a mismanaged White House. But out in the real world intelligence people are going to die because of this. Besides totally jeopardizing the ability of the US to conduct effective operations overseas.

Do CIA agents ever wonder just who their enemies are, the enemies of America or the government of America?

The US makes concessions in the case of Pakistan for very real and valid reasons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

...keep your enemies closer.

$20 billion in aid to Pakistan since the 9/11 attacks. The vast majority of this money has gone to a Pakistani military force that allows Taliban across the border and is thus an obstacle to US success in Afghanistan. We cannot end military support to Pakistan as long as we need its support in identifying the terrorists who have sanctuary there. The best thing the US can do right now is gradually provide for a smaller footprint across the entire Mideast and Central Asia.

Creating huge military establishments in Afghanistan and Pakistan that neither country will be able to afford once we are gone has been a huge obstacle to good governance in both places.

The worry is that if they lose US funding, they will seek money elsewhere. How much do you think a nuclear warhead would fetch on the black market? And their weapons don't have the safeguards of western devices. Put one on a small cargo ship and wire in a big red button...

This talk about ending financial aid to Pakistan is nonsense because my tax money never should have been sent over there in the first place, especially considering the amount of debt our own country is in.

And the nuclear fear mongering is just that. There are a plethora of countries with nuclear capability, including its neighbor India that essentially receives no US aid. This puppeteer foreign policy not only has proven time and time again that it doesn't work, creates more problems than it solves (the whole reason we're in this Iraq and Pakistan mess to begin with), but its also bogus to think that the US has a right to go around the world and try and buy foreign governments... and they wonder why we have no issue finding enemies around the world.

So, yes, Pakistan aid should be cut off, but not because they aren't doing whatever we tell them to do as a stipulation of obedience, but because they never should have gotten it in the first place. And while we are at it, we can stop foreign aid to Israel, which accounts for an entire FIFTH of the budget every year, with no apparent return on investment, selling US advanced weapon technology to our enemies, and the nation being highly industrialized w/ a mean per capita income similar to many European countries.

Foreign aid should only be given temporarily and in cases of natural disasters to help distribute food, water, and medical care.

How many nations of that nuclear plethora hide terrorist masterminds just outside the fences of their military bases? If high level military members are supporters, or even followers, then what you call "fear mongering" is in fact, a very real concern. If the very people who control the nuclear weapons are in fact supporting terrorists, then the danger is real.

And giving money to one half while bombing the other half is really enhancing stability in the region.

Yeah, making concessions, creating legal exemptions and looking the other way...that's worked real well. Wasn't it US military aid that helped to create a sanctuary for anti-Soviet extremists in the 1980s ? For the price of allowing Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons and train terrorists on one side of the border so we can now fight those same extremists on the other side. Sell the technology to Libya and Iran, just give them more fighter jets - as Reagan put "nuclear proliferation was none of our business."

If the "Arab Spring" has demonstrated anything it is the inability of military assistance to have a positive impact on democratic change in the Middle East. A heavy US military footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing but weaken our own economic and diplomatic security in the long run.

Call it isolationism but the public is sick of guns at the expense of butter, and when you're broke, you're broke. Justifying military adventurism around the globe is galling when people can't find jobs, can't afford food, pay high gas prices, and are losing their homes. Happily the tide seems to be turning and elected representatives and senators are finally feeling public pressure. More and more Republicans want out of Afghanistan and the House just voted to defund the Libya operation. It's long past time for the US to reconsider its foreign policies in the Middle East in my view.

It is long past the time to start making the tough decisions. However, it is up to the politicians to make those decisions, and they're not going to, for one reason. It poisons political careers to make the tough decisions. People like Paul can claim grand ideas, because they know that even if they somehow managed to get elected, they would never attain enough support to actually do any of them.

No, the US is just going to continue on it's path of denial and keep putting off the tough decisions for "someone else" to make, just like has been going on for political generations.

Last I checked, Paul HAS been elected for 12 terms to date, with 76.6% of the vote last turn around.

Regarding pointless grand-standing for political benefit, he's voted consistently for decades often at political disadvantage to himself (and specifically in this thread, consistently against financial aid to Pakistan). He was the ONLY Republican for example to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, and subsequent upon being overruled sponsored at least adding a sunset clause to the Resolution. The Israeli lobby in Washington is also very powerful, and yet Paul stuck his neck out against Isreal such as in his statement, "*snip*... clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?" Paul cited the past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from businesses connected to the Sudanese government, and was the ONLY no vote on the Dafur Act. He was also a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act, again breaking with the party line to speak to his beliefs.

So certainly there are some politicians out there that are willing to stick their neck out for what they believe in and drink that "political poison" as you say, but they can't get ahead if we don't actually vote to elevate their office.

I don't recall ever having had a President Paul. Do you have a reference for that?

I'll bump this thread in 2012!!!

So he hasn't been elected President? Then what was the point of your post?