China-Pak nuclear deal: US asks for Pak-China nuke arrangement details

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,554
Country flag
There seems to be some confusion between trade and aid both are not the same. Stay on topic.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Sorry sir but india is the worlds largests AID reciever... 654 billion $.
$654 billion??. What are you smoking?. Most of the Aid that India gets are loans from World bank and Asian development bank which needs to be paid back in installments with interest by the government. This Aid is not free for all. On the other hand, Pakistan gets a lot of AID from US and Friends of Pakistan (FoP) which it need not pay back.

This is a good start to know the AID provided by US

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html


Not to mention 1.5 billion dollars of AID that you get annually for next 5 years due to Kerry-Lugar bill.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
$654 billion??. What are you smoking?. Most of the Aid that India gets are loans from World bank and Asian development bank which needs to be paid back in installments with interest by the government. This Aid is not free for all. On the other hand, Pakistan gets a lot of AID from US and Friends of Pakistan (FoP) which it need not pay back.

This is a good start to know the AID provided by US

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html


Not to mention 1.5 billion dollars of AID that you get annually for next 5 years due to Kerry-Lugar bill.
In short we get loans and they get baksheesh from their masters..
 

Bad kid

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
16
Likes
0
In short we get loans and they get baksheesh from their masters..
http://www.economistan.com/articles/10105.html

Look here .... we lost 35 billion in wot and crippled our economy and have only recieved 10 billion $... now u check this site... its just a sleek reminder how much the great india gor BAKSHEESH frm her masters.
Bhai is hamam mein sab nangay haien.... instead of acting like snobs... be down to earth.
Cheers
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,554
Country flag
http://www.economistan.com/articles/10105.html

Look here .... we lost 35 billion in wot and crippled our economy and have only recieved 10 billion $... now u check this site... its just a sleek reminder how much the great india gor BAKSHEESH frm her masters.
Bhai is hamam mein sab nangay haien.... instead of acting like snobs... be down to earth.
Cheers
Bad Kid since we are on this topic it seems the general public in Pakistan does not want to be dragged into these wars that the military rule is always thrusting open them. Is there any solution to break this cycle?? Religion plays a central role in Pakistani life but you are asked to kill muslims by USA in Afghanistan and now China is asking you to kill Uighurs, (bangladeshis in the past) isn't there a conflict in this??
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
check it out :
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html

The history of U.S. assistance to Pakistan follows a predictable script: aid is tied to security imperatives that come and go, while the country's political and economic well-being is effectively ignored. As an early ally in the cold war, Pakistan received nearly $2 billion from 1953 to 1961, a quarter of which was military assistance. The United States then suspended assistance during the Indo-Pakistan wars and following Pakistan's construction of a uranium enrichment facility in 1979. Pakistan remerged as an ally in the 1980s during the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan and was again the recipient of aid. But following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the late 1980s, assistance to Pakistan took another nosedive.

Following 9/11, Pakistan became a U.S. ally once more, and unsurprisingly, almost all of the aid provided since has gone to military operations. By failing to commit to the long-term health of the Pakistani state, successive generations of U.S. policymakers have convinced many in Pakistan, both in and out of government, that we are a demanding power with little interest in their own security, rather than a genuine partner. Increasing political and economic instability and the failure of a military-centric approach to check growing violence demonstrate that the Pakistani people need more than military assistance to improve stability in their country.
Assistance is largely targeted at fighting terrorism



$7.89 billion: The amount of U.S. military assistance to Pakistan since 9/11, the majority of which has been from "coalition support funds" intended as reimbursement for Pakistani assistance in the war on terror.

$3.1 billion: The amount allocated to economic and development assistance, including food aid, during the same period.
Is this military aid helping make Pakistan safer?


189: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2003.

648: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2005.

3,599: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2007.

63 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed in June 2008 who felt less secure than they did just one year ago.

86 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed who believed their country was headed in the wrong direction.

72 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed who believed their personal economic situation had worsened in the past year.

Pakistanis need aid in other areas




77 million: The number of Pakistanis—half the country's population—that are unable to secure an adequate nutritional intake.

50 percent: The percentage of the Pakistani population that is literate. Only one-third of Pakistani women can read and write.

2 percent: The percentage of total U.S. aid packages since 2001 directed toward education. This amounts to an average of less than $2 per Pakistani child per year.

A different approach is needed for FATA




$5.8 billion: Amount of U.S. aid to Pakistan spent in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas from 2002 through 2007.

96 percent: The percentage of those funds that were directed toward military operations.

1 percent: The percentage of those founds directed toward development.

Increased assistance is particularly needed in the ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a region along the northwest border with Afghanistan that has been a key front in the war on terrorism. Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, has noted that for nearly three decades now the only opportunities in this region have been "a service economy serving the industry of jihad"; low literacy rates (17 percent overall and 3 percent for women) and inadequate medical care (1 doctor for every 6,762 people) reflect the area's long history of political marginalization. In this space, militant groups are able to organize and establish parallel state structures, endangering Pakistan and its neighbors.

Instead of focusing so heavily on military aid to Pakistan, the United States should dedicate more of its funding to enhancing security and earning the support of the Pakistani people through increased economic and development assistance. By working with a new civilian government to address Pakistan's basic needs—improving literacy rates, boosting energy and agricultural production, providing more access to health care, and more—the United States can strengthen Pakistani society and institutions against militant subversion. In doing so we also clearly demonstrate a respect for Pakistan's own needs, moving the partnership beyond short-term cyclical engagement that neglects the underlying causes of the country's instability.
http://www.americares.org/wherewework/asia/pakistan.html?cpc_googleg&gclid=CPmLpcyytKICFcpS6wodsg-S6g
 

Bad kid

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
16
Likes
0
Bad Kid since we are on this topic it seems the general public in Pakistan does not want to be dragged into these wars that the military rule is always thrusting open them. Is there any solution to break this cycle?? Religion plays a central role in Pakistani life but you are asked to kill muslims by USA in Afghanistan and now China is asking you to kill Uighurs, (bangladeshis in the past) isn't there a conflict in this??
We didnt but now it has bcome our war... n how r we killin muslims in afghanistan n china?who created mukti bhani thugs is also well documented...anyways plz dnt derail the thread.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
We didnt but now it has bcome our war... n how r we killin muslims in afghanistan n china?who created mukti bhani thugs is also well documented...anyways plz dnt derail the thread.
Since this thread has derailed. Let me ask you a question. Who started ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh ? It seems you have very little knowledge of History.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,554
Country flag
We didnt but now it has bcome our war... n how r we killin muslims in afghanistan n china?who created mukti bhani thugs is also well documented...anyways plz dnt derail the thread.
Are the Taliban muslims?? Are the Uighurs muslims?? USA is paying you to kill them and nothing more and now China is picking up on this.
 

Bad kid

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
16
Likes
0
check it out :
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html

The history of U.S. assistance to Pakistan follows a predictable script: aid is tied to security imperatives that come and go, while the country's political and economic well-being is effectively ignored. As an early ally in the cold war, Pakistan received nearly $2 billion from 1953 to 1961, a quarter of which was military assistance. The United States then suspended assistance during the Indo-Pakistan wars and following Pakistan's construction of a uranium enrichment facility in 1979. Pakistan remerged as an ally in the 1980s during the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan and was again the recipient of aid. But following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the late 1980s, assistance to Pakistan took another nosedive.

Following 9/11, Pakistan became a U.S. ally once more, and unsurprisingly, almost all of the aid provided since has gone to military operations. By failing to commit to the long-term health of the Pakistani state, successive generations of U.S. policymakers have convinced many in Pakistan, both in and out of government, that we are a demanding power with little interest in their own security, rather than a genuine partner. Increasing political and economic instability and the failure of a military-centric approach to check growing violence demonstrate that the Pakistani people need more than military assistance to improve stability in their country.
Assistance is largely targeted at fighting terrorism



$7.89 billion: The amount of U.S. military assistance to Pakistan since 9/11, the majority of which has been from "coalition support funds" intended as reimbursement for Pakistani assistance in the war on terror.

$3.1 billion: The amount allocated to economic and development assistance, including food aid, during the same period.
Is this military aid helping make Pakistan safer?


189: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2003.

648: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2005.

3,599: The number of deaths from terrorist violence in Pakistan in 2007.

63 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed in June 2008 who felt less secure than they did just one year ago.

86 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed who believed their country was headed in the wrong direction.

72 percent: The percentage of Pakistanis surveyed who believed their personal economic situation had worsened in the past year.

Pakistanis need aid in other areas




77 million: The number of Pakistanis—half the country's population—that are unable to secure an adequate nutritional intake.

50 percent: The percentage of the Pakistani population that is literate. Only one-third of Pakistani women can read and write.

2 percent: The percentage of total U.S. aid packages since 2001 directed toward education. This amounts to an average of less than $2 per Pakistani child per year.

A different approach is needed for FATA




$5.8 billion: Amount of U.S. aid to Pakistan spent in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas from 2002 through 2007.

96 percent: The percentage of those funds that were directed toward military operations.

1 percent: The percentage of those founds directed toward development.

Increased assistance is particularly needed in the ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a region along the northwest border with Afghanistan that has been a key front in the war on terrorism. Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, has noted that for nearly three decades now the only opportunities in this region have been "a service economy serving the industry of jihad"; low literacy rates (17 percent overall and 3 percent for women) and inadequate medical care (1 doctor for every 6,762 people) reflect the area's long history of political marginalization. In this space, militant groups are able to organize and establish parallel state structures, endangering Pakistan and its neighbors.

Instead of focusing so heavily on military aid to Pakistan, the United States should dedicate more of its funding to enhancing security and earning the support of the Pakistani people through increased economic and development assistance. By working with a new civilian government to address Pakistan's basic needs—improving literacy rates, boosting energy and agricultural production, providing more access to health care, and more—the United States can strengthen Pakistani society and institutions against militant subversion. In doing so we also clearly demonstrate a respect for Pakistan's own needs, moving the partnership beyond short-term cyclical engagement that neglects the underlying causes of the country's instability.
http://www.americares.org/wherewework/asia/pakistan.html?cpc_googleg&gclid=CPmLpcyytKICFcpS6wodsg-S6g
Does this prove tht er didnt lose 35 billion dollars? and india isnt the worlds largest AID reciever?
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Does this prove tht er didnt lose 35 billion dollars? and india isnt the worlds largest AID reciever?
bring in the proof first and then I will answer it . and donot quote your Pakistani newspapers.
 

Bad kid

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
16
Likes
0
Are the Taliban muslims?? Are the Uighurs muslims?? USA is paying you to kill them and nothing more and now China is picking up on this.
Is tht thread about Pakistan killing muslims? or N.DEAL between PAK/CHINA???? =xy
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
OK no more off-topic posts from here on. The discussion is about China-Pak nuke deal and US intolerance towards such a deal. Keep to the topic otherwise posts will get deleted.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,554
Country flag
will this deal be just to build reactor or also supply the fuel?? If yes for fuel how will China supply the fuel if they import fuel themselves??
 

Bad kid

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
16
Likes
0
I think Nuclear reactors.. but nothing comprehensive is known about it.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,554
Country flag
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...-about-what-pak-will-do-with-reactors_1400098

India should be worried about what Pak will do with reactors

India should be worried about what Pak will do with reactors
Suman Sharma / DNA
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:02 IST


New Delhi: With China flaunting its might ahead of the 46-member nuclear suppliers group (NSG) meet scheduled for next week, Indian defence analysts and strategic experts say Beijing is behaving like an immature global player. China has agreed to supply a couple of additional reactors to Pakistan without the NSG's approval.

Defence analyst Commodore (retired) C Uday Bhaskar pointed out that India was in no position to question China's decision since it is not an NSG member. "China needs the approval of all NSG members before going ahead with something like this. India should be worried about Pakistan's intent. What does Pakistan want to do with that capability?" he asked.

Defence analyst K Subramanium recalled that thanks to China's strong economy, the non-proliferation community was helpless when Beijing supplied missiles to Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

"It should not matter if China supplies a couple of more reactors to Pakistan. But this [more reactors] will be a cause of concern to Pakistan since those reactors will be targeted in case of a war.

India should worry only when Pakistan makes more nuclear weapons. Also, Pakistan will supply nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia too, which should bother Iran, as Iran is a Shia country and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are Sunni countries. So this could only worsen relations between Iran and Pakistan," he said.

Former air chief, Air Chief Marshal (retired) FH Major said the
question was what Pakistan intended to do with those reactors. "Will Pakistan use them for weaponisation or for energy?" he asked.

While China is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which forbids it from supplying reactors to any country not part of NPT, it has illegally supplied reactors to Pakistan in the past and has also been its partner in the missile program.

A Strategic Forces Command (SFC) source told DNA that by openly supplying reactors to Pakistan, China is only legalising the help it has been providing Pakistan in the past. "China also buys fuel from Australia, like everyone else, which even Pakistan will. So it is not the fuel, but the technology and reactors that Pakistan gets that is a matter of worry for India. China will use the Indo-US nuclear deal as a precedence now and openly supply Pakistan with reactors," he said.

There is little doubt that the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal will be cited as an example to justify China's supply of nuclear reactors to Pakistan during the NSG meeting due in New Zealand soon.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top