Canada Only Pledges $2 Million for Flood-Ravaged Pakistan
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
I hate to sound this way???
but I think they should force Pakistan to give up all the people who are associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban living in their country to the American Military, before they receive any assistance.
if Pakistan is harbouring any Terrorists from either groups, I would say "no, you give them to us first, ALL OF THEM!, then we'll give you money and help"
sorry but sometimes you have to play hardball.
but I think they should force Pakistan to give up all the people who are associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban living in their country to the American Military, before they receive any assistance.
if Pakistan is harbouring any Terrorists from either groups, I would say "no, you give them to us first, ALL OF THEM!, then we'll give you money and help"
sorry but sometimes you have to play hardball.
In the past disasters money has flowed in faster than relief could actually get there, and has been more money than was needed in the end according to some sources. I see no problem with countries learning from that and not simply pledging scads of money which people can't eat, can't wear, and which won't keep their kids from drowning, etc.
I cannot believe anyone would have seriously suggested third-world peasants should have contributed to the 1997 Manitoba flood. Of course, it was a difficult time for the 28 000 Manitobans who had to be evacuated; but there was no loss of life! Honestly...
And is not Pakistan an ally in the war on terror? But that's irrelevant!
By the way, $2 million is 6 cents per Canadian for a disaster affecting millions of people no different from us!
And is not Pakistan an ally in the war on terror? But that's irrelevant!
By the way, $2 million is 6 cents per Canadian for a disaster affecting millions of people no different from us!
but... but... they're black! ....and they allow the fictitious taliban and al Quida to live among them.
Oh, and they're Muslim.
I cannot believe anyone could interpret an example like so.... Flood was relevant. I could have said Haiti to appease the nit-pickers among us ... but then, that wasn't Canada, was it?
I don't know.... Is Pakistan an ally? Why are Taliban taking refuge there?
What does it matter? We are talking about poor people in trouble not whether their government is friendly to us or not. It would be really easy for the Us to go in and take out the offending parties to your war on terrorism if you wanted to, but innocent people are dying from a natural disaster, not politics.
But I can see the reluctance of Canada dumping many more millions with no real idea of where it is going. We saw what happened at the beginning of the Somalia famine. All the aid went to warlords.
When it comes down to criticism for not giving a big enough gift, that's when it borders on outright bad manners and not very friendly. Canada always gives a little in the beginning and more later. Is it really aid if it's expected?
