Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

F-You PakistanFollow

#1 May 23 2012 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Srsly, so many f's for you.

That's all. If you're confused, go read a newspaper or somethin'.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 May 23 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Only things popping up with my Google Fu is that Pakistan convicted the doctor who informed us about Bin Laden for conspiring against the state, and that [link]US drone strikes really tick off Pakistan[/link] despite being rather effective in killing terrorists. Am I missing anything?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#3 May 23 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
Drone kills four, Senate to cut aid to, acid women fear backlash over movie, and negotiations during the Chicago Summit?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 May 23 2012 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was mainly spurred by the doctor situation but I'm willing to say F-You to Pakistan for any number of reasons Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 May 23 2012 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
Well, it's not like they haven't been giving an abundance of reasons as of late.

Operation Really Fay Sounding Name for an Operation Against Pakistan 2014!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#6 May 23 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
So, it's ok for America to bomb Pakistani soldiers with no apology for its acitons and to run covert ops, gathering information about an ally's populace (DNA), information America could never legally gather on it's own populace, but it's not ok for that ally to take issue with these items?

Does anyone question what sort of response America would take to an ally gathering DNA on their citizens and bombing American troops with no apology?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7 May 23 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I don't know how willingly I'd use the term "ally" to describe Pakistan...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#8 May 23 2012 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So, it's ok for America to bomb Pakistani soldiers with no apology for its acitons and to run covert ops, gathering information about an ally's populace (DNA), information America could never legally gather on it's own populace, but it's not ok for that ally to take issue with these items?

Well, they could certainly take a stand by not cashing the checks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 May 23 2012 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
Locke's Article wrote:
He was tried under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, or FCR, the set of laws that govern Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal region. Human rights organizations have criticized the FCR for not providing suspects due process of law. There is no right to legal representation, to present material evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

Sounds peachy.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#10 May 23 2012 at 9:48 AM Rating: Default
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So, it's ok for America to bomb Pakistani soldiers with no apology for its acitons and to run covert ops, gathering information about an ally's populace (DNA), information America could never legally gather on it's own populace, but it's not ok for that ally to take issue with these items?

Well, they could certainly take a stand by not cashing the checks.
That was a hopeful comment and not an actual expectation yes? I mean, Republicans show you daily that people don't actually do that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#11 May 23 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That was a hopeful comment and not an actual expectation yes?

More of a dismissal of Pakistan's ******** when they're getting billions in aid in exchange for their supposed assistance in the whole "Catch bin Laden and stop Al'Qaeda" thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 May 23 2012 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So, it's ok for America to bomb Pakistani soldiers with no apology for its acitons and to run covert ops, gathering information about an ally's populace (DNA), information America could never legally gather on it's own populace, but it's not ok for that ally to take issue with these items?

Does anyone question what sort of response America would take to an ally gathering DNA on their citizens and bombing American troops with no apology?
This. If Pakistan killed someone who organized a lot of stuff to hurt Pakistan/Pakistani citizens in the US and the US would find out about an American citizen who helped them gather information for the assassination I doubt he'd get treated much better than this doctor.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#13 May 23 2012 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
This. If Pakistan killed someone who organized a lot of stuff to hurt Pakistan/Pakistani citizens in the US and the US would find out about an American citizen who helped them gather information for the assassination I doubt he'd get treated much better than this doctor.

How many billions of dollars to find this guy is Pakistan paying us in this hypothetical?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 May 23 2012 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
I don't really keep up on America/Pakistan relations. Are you guys still paying them?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#15 May 23 2012 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.

Edited, May 23rd 2012 12:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 May 23 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
We're seriously considering writing them a very sternly-worded letter.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 May 23 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.

Edited, May 23rd 2012 12:29pm by lolgaxe
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys decided to stop paying for it?


Edited, May 23rd 2012 1:33pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#18 May 23 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
I was pretty sure we had to play nice until we get all our equipment out of Afghanistan; since Pakistan's ports are our best option and what not.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19 May 23 2012 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys stopped paying for it?
Cutting, not stopping.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 May 23 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys stopped paying for it?
Cutting, not stopping.
No difference really, not when it comes to buying loyalty.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#21 May 23 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Not like giving them more money was making them more loyal though. I guess we got more for our money than we would have out of Iran. There's that at least. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#22 May 23 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys decided to stop paying for it?

Actually, the funding was reduced as a result of "Oh, you mean bin Laden was there all along? Haha... who knew?", restrictions on supply movement, restrictions on intelligence gathering and other odds and ends. We weren't getting our money's worth.

someproteinguy wrote:
I was pretty sure we had to play nice until we get all our equipment out of Afghanistan; since Pakistan's ports are our best option and what not.

Pakistan has blocked land access through to Afghanistan for NATO.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 May 23 2012 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I was pretty sure we had to play nice until we get all our equipment out of Afghanistan; since Pakistan's ports are our best option and what not.

Pakistan has blocked land access through to Afghanistan for NATO.


I could have sworn I was reading the other day about negotiations for transit, I'm guessing that all fell through then? Or never had a chance or something? Smiley: frown

Edit (answering my own question...):

Quote:
The two countries also failed to reach agreement at the Nato summit in Chicago over the supply routes that were closed after a US air strike in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Islamabad is demanding more than $5,000 (£3,200) per lorry, up from its previous rate of $250, to let supplies flow again.


From the bottom of this.

Edited, May 23rd 2012 10:16am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 May 23 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.

Edited, May 23rd 2012 12:29pm by lolgaxe
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys decided to stop paying for it?


Edited, May 23rd 2012 1:33pm by Uglysasquatch
This latest bit o' news would lead one to believe that the US wasn't really getting their monies worth all along.

caveat emptor
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 May 23 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I think the Senate just voted on cutting funding for next year.

Edited, May 23rd 2012 12:29pm by lolgaxe
So their loyalty ended right around the time you guys decided to stop paying for it?


Edited, May 23rd 2012 1:33pm by Uglysasquatch
This latest bit o' news would lead one to believe that the US wasn't really getting their monies worth all along.

caveat emptor
Or maybe they weren't paying enough to get worthwhile loyalty? The whole point of this is that when buying loyalty, be shocked by nothing, as it's fleeting at best.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#26 May 23 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
The point is they shouldn't be ****** when the money starts to slow down.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (47)