It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. is paying six times as much to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes after Pakistan's punitive decision in November to close border crossings to NATO convoys, the Associated Press has learned.
Islamabad shut down two key Pakistan border crossings after a U.S. airstrike killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in late November, and it is unclear when the crossings might reopen.
Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it is now costing about $104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87 milli
Originally posted by neo96
We make peace with the taliban and pull out of Afghanistan we won't need a supply route and it won't cost nothing.
No wait nevermind that Foreign aid will continue as norm.
Originally posted by nenothtu
A better idea would be to cut ALL aid to Pakistan, and throw all of Pakistan's former aid to India. That'll make the bastards think!
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by DrumsRfun
Research the Pakistani ISI/Taliban connection.
In the flurry of statements on the killing of Osama bin Laden, a remark from Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, spoke volumes about how U.S. foreign aid tends to be perceived by its recipients. It’s not enough. “The United States spent much more money in Iraq than it did in Afghanistan,” Haqqani said in a television interview. “And then it spent much more in Afghanistan than it did in Pakistan. So were there cracks through which things fell through? Absolutely.” That twisted logic suggests that if only Washington had given Pakistan a few billion more than the $20.7 billion it provided over the past decade, bin Laden, a man with a $27 million bounty on his head, would not have “fallen through the cracks.” Those cracks were wide enough to swallow bin Laden’s one-acre walled compound with a three-storey building in a garrison town near the Pakistani capital.
As Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s bin Laden unit, puts it: “They (the Pakistanis) know we need them more than they need us. They also know that the Saudis and the Chinese would step in with money and aid if we backed out.”
Perversely, in Pakistan and Egypt, two of the four countries that topped the list of U.S. aid recipients in 2010, the publics hold overwhelmingly unfavorable views of the United States, according to the annual global attitudes survey by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.
However, Pakistan is pushing for a full apology and has halted the movement of Nato supplies from its port of Karachi to two land crossings into Afghanistan. The government is considering hiking taxes on the shipments if they do eventually resume
Rick Perry says that when it comes to foreign aid, his administration will start with zero and then discuss whether a country should get it. And when it comes to Pakistan, he says that they don’t deserve our foreign aid because of the mixed messages they are sending us. He says he doesn’t trust them and that we must send a clear message to Pakistan starting with foreign aid.