It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US costs soar for new war supply routes

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

US costs soar for new war supply routes


www.google.com

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
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Pakistan to re-open NATO routes to Afghanistan




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Yeah well so much for the Pakistani route shut down being permanent. Only this time around it's going to cost NATO a mint to kill people in Afghanistan.

I wonder just how many back door deals and palm pressing went on? The way Pakistan was spewing their rhetoric just a few short weeks back one would have thought [And many here at ATS did] WW-III was about to break out.

As always Stay tuned.




www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 19-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It wreaks to high heavens.
Read the news for the past 15 years and try to make sense of it....all of it.
Follow the money and remember everything that was written if you can.

Supposedly...(SUPPOSEDLY),they (Pakistan) wire the 911 hijackers money....but we blame the taliban and Osama?
Then the taliban are in peace talks...isn't that the reason we are there in Afghanistan...the taliban were helping Bin Laden if you read the news and the taliban are terrorists?
THEN...they accuse Pakistan of hiding Bin Laden...but not the taliban and nothing mentioned about them.
Now for some money...they are "helping us" even though the taliban are in peace talks?
Who the hell is the enemy and how does one make sense of it all??

You are right Slayer...alot of greasing of the palms happening here and its hard using logic while reading MSM.


The behind the scenes stuff is what conspiracies are made of....and they just made it worse.
Whats going on??

Peace talks with the taliban...Pakistan helping us out with supply routes?????
Why are we there again??



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

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.


Dumb move to continue Foreign Aid to Pakistan after they backstabbed us like they have, so that's probably exactly how it will go.

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!



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Don't worry China will soon be picking up the Pakistani Tab soon enough.
They have Islamic extremists working within China's Western Province based in and supported from Pakistan.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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!

Might wanna re-think that .

I guess you didn't get the memo, I'll send it to you. www.sarkaritel.com...
That US money will end up in Iran's pockets.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Pakistan has nukes. If they didn't have nukes, we wouldn't give them aid or call them an "ally" or think twice about invading.

As it is the USA has only one goal with Pakistan: Keep it as stable as possible. If a rouge government gets in they could sell off Nuclear material and or weapons (which they did before, providing nuclear information to many states and possibly organizations, Libya was one benefactor). Then there is India, is an inflammatory government were to take over the possibility of a war, possibly nuclear, with India/Pakistan is more likely.

They've been double crossing us through the entire war.. they have unofficially supported attacks in India and China, as well as Afghanistan and likely Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised to find there are Pakistani nuclear scientist working in Iran. But we have to keep them happy less a nuke falls into the hands of a terrorist organization or worse, one of Pakistan's own terrorist organizations.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
They should of just went in
and leveled the whole
damn area. Iraq should
give us oil for liberating them.
We should demand money
re payment from Iraq and that
will help supplement the cost
these back stabbing packies
are putting on us.
edit on 19-1-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Well that should off set the fact that China has been cutting back on it's purchase of Iranian oil...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I never accredited the US Federal Government with and over abundence of intelligence of course it should be cut off

but what it should do and what it does are two entirely different things.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Excellent info.
Research the Pakistani ISI/Taliban connection.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The relationship with Pakistan is a matter of necessity. As long as military operations are being conducted in Afghanistan, the US is going to bend over backwards and grease as many palms as possible to keep their supply lines open. Military necessity trumps just about everything else. As Slayer pointed out with his OP, opening other routes and finding other means to supply the troops has proved to be more costlier than turning the other cheek and swallowing pride.

I'll admit that the stunts Pakistan has pulled in the past few months is bold disrespect and conduct unbecoming of an ally as the US refers to them. However, as long as combat continues in Afghanistan, the combatants are going to need quite excessive logistical support in the form of ammo, weapons, food, vehicles, and any other necessity to carry out their mission. The routes through Pakistan are the most cost effective, and practical. Until that changes, the US and NATO are going to have to hold their noses at Pakistan's foul behavior. For future reference, perhaps it would be a good idea to think twice before committing oneself militarily to such a great extent as the US has over the past few years without guaranteed access to supply routes to a landlocked country?
edit on 19-1-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
good the price of lives cannot be determined in currencies and forex or markets and commodities. i hope there is a greater american backlash because of this and some american politicians who think its "cool" to support killing people for the sake of ideals they dont respect themselves come under greater fire and scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Excellent info.
Research the Pakistani ISI/Taliban connection.


Add this to your research also...................


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.


Pakistan and questions over foreign aid

Time to cut foreign aid.That faucet should be turned off.PERIOD
I also wonder if Pakistan will understand how good they actually had it.............
The new "help" might do things a little differently......




S&F



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


If they do decide to let shipments in,they are going to "tax" the HELL out of them.


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



Pakistan tells US special envoy to stay away



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I don’t agree with my Governor, Rick Perry very often but I would like to on this issue:


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.
link

Generally speaking - we need to stop the flow of money, stop buying goods (especially oil) from countries that hate us, stop sticking our nose in their business and just let these sick F*’s kill each other off. The problem is we have to tread lightly in Pakistan because we must preserve the ability to keep close tabs on its nukes (and potshot terrorists). At the very least we should cut off funding and renegotiate our strategic alliance with Pakistan…we need to get a LOT more from them in exchange for the foreign aid they receive from US.

What a cluster F…



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Makes no difference to me - Pakistan wouldn't be getting it, and it would irritate the hell out of them that India was. I could care less if we air-drop pallets of hundred dollar bills over Iran.

Unless they started funneling it to Pakistan...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Oddly, the US has nukes, too.

That's one of the reasons a nuclear Iran doesn't scare me much.

If Pakistani extremists really wanted to play the nuclear game, I wonder which of us has more, and which could make bigger glass-lined craters?

I'm not in favor of rewarding errant children. I'm in favor of busting their little miscreant asses.

Take away their allowance.

Yes, they HAVE been double crossing us throughout the war. All the more reason to take away their toys and put 'em in a time out. Rewarding them for it isn't likely to have the proper effect.





edit on 2012/1/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Buying up strategic positions is a strategy that has limits. The US might be hitting that limit. Giving it up entirely isn't necessarily a good idea though.

This is one of those things politicians say, then they get into power, someone hands them the real information..... and then they have to figure out how to get out of their statements.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join