Trump slams Pakistan for 'lies & deceit' in New Year's tweet

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

In July of 2011, the relations between Pakistan and the United States were strained. And as a result, the Pakistani government closed the roads going into Afghanistan. As a result supplies did not go into Afghanistan via land, and was jammed at the boarder of both countries. During that time frame they looked at other countries to get supplies in and came up with some problems.

Many of the countries to the north, the ex-soviet states, were found to be either charging large amounts of money for that ability to travel through, or lacked the infrastructure to travel, with many in the works, but taking time for it to build, test and maintain.

If Pakistan pulls out, then that means no more traveling via land or air, as the US would no longer be welcome in the country and would have to evacuate all personnel and equipment and simply leave, with no way to come back and retrieve any item.

Now the US military did look at airlifting in supplies, however, as was pointed out, it was 10 times expensive to fly supplies and equipment in, as opposed to send it via the ground.

So the problem is that if Pakistan pulls out, ground and air transport that rout would not be possible, for it would risk war with that region, with Pakistan, China and Iran, all cause the USA violated the territory and airspace of a sovereign country, with a military war plane, and would have to now pay Russia and all of those smaller countries, supporting those with massive human rights violations under their belt, to transport stuff into Afghanistan.

Though the simplest way would be to withdraw from Afghanistan and let them sort out the problems in their country, and having the people decide on how they want their country to be.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Maybe he is planning an Afghan pull out?

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Thank you Foxtrot.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Blender5L

I'm all for stopping foreign aide, especially to Pakistan, but Trump and his tweets are odd because just this past October he sent out a very complimentary tweet about Pakistan.

twitter.com...

Starting to develop a much better relationship with Pakistan and its leaders. I want to thank them for their cooperation on many fronts.

He's always on both sides of every issue and you never know where he stands. I wouldn't be surprised if he compliments Pakistan in the coming months again.

Pakistan has a track record for lying about everything it seems.

a day ago
www.aol.com...

www.dawn.com...

www.thejournal.ie...

from september
www.aol.com...

from january 2016
www.mangobaaz.com...

The trouble with Pakistan from 2006
www.economist.com...

a reply to: 3n19m470

Somehow I don't think he is. Now with having approved for more troops to be deployed there. That is how it got up to 11 thousand, where it was 8 thousand before he took office. Increasing of troop numbers is an indication of not pulling out but of increasing operations.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

canadian oil sands and fracking. we got the oil. its just we lack will.

a reply to: yuppa

That is Canada, not the United States. They may not want to sell to the USA and deprive the US of that asset. Right now the industry in Canada is a touchy subject, as it takes greater energy than it is producing. And unlike the US, Canada is concerned about climate change. So while it seems to be a viable option, the reality is that it is not and could fizzle out still not meeting the energy needs of the USA.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: yuppa

That is Canada, not the United States. They may not want to sell to the USA and deprive the US of that asset. Right now the industry in Canada is a touchy subject, as it takes greater energy than it is producing. And unlike the US, Canada is concerned about climate change. So while it seems to be a viable option, the reality is that it is not and could fizzle out still not meeting the energy needs of the USA.

Just buy carbon offsets.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

West texas and the dakotas can supply our oil, but we would have to convert our refineries to process sweet light.

That is an expensive proposition.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: sdcigarpig

West texas and the dakotas can supply our oil, but we would have to convert our refineries to process sweet light.

That is an expensive proposition.

True...but imagine the savings in the long run. No paying bribes to saudis. no having to protect them either.

a reply to: Blender5L

If I may intervene for a moment.

I am flabbergasted that this entire thread was started by a seemingly Trump supporter quoting "fake news" ABC. I mean, isn't the "mainstream media" Trump's sworn enemy?

Carry on.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That means that there is a spike in the cost, as they convert the refineries. That is seen twice a year where the gas goes from summer to winger blends. But it still would be a bit of a shortage in oil. And most gas companies will be loath to reduce the price, and thus starting a whole new round of gas going up more and more until it is far more expensive to drive.

But there is a flip side to this and one that we can look at history. The last time there was a major oil shortage, that caused prices to skyrocket, most of the car dealerships started to produce vehicles that were energy effecient, and got more gas per gallon. And maybe this time we are going to see either a big push for either alternative fuels that remove some dependence on fossil fuels, better electric cars or cars that get far better gas millage than what we have already.

a reply to: yuppa

From what I can tell the Tax Sands is not a popular thing in Canada, and while buying carbon offsets may seem like a good idea, the reality is that the price would be far more expensive, as the company in Canada mining such would have to purchase them and that would have to be paid for at the pump and those that would use the product. Means higher prices than what is already being paid.

a reply to: Blender5L

he probably found that they too were shipping massive amounts of heroin to us. but seriously they got their own nukes us giving them a handout makes as much sense as england giving india billions of pounds sterling who has nukes and a space program when england does not.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

really . pretty sure the us is one of top 20 producers of oil . we really import only about a fifth of our oil from saudis and that is to keep them trading in petrodollars. we cut ourselves mostly from that teat decades ago to keep from having a repeat of oil crisis of the 70s and the largest oil imports we receive is from canada. and if they try blocking off straits they likely will come under fire by their neighbors. also a major question why da blank we in afganistan they baloney well aqeda trained there so going by that logic we should have deployed a marine meu to secure new bern nc my home town why because 9/11 high jackers learned to fly there at airport flight school. we realy had no reason to be there and since the war started there the scourge of heroin which was a rarity in the state before 9/11 became a true epidemic

There's two sides to this, is Trump right about Pakistan, 100% YES but is his approach the way to do it, and with that I'd say no, constant threats will not do the job, measured responses work better with a hard line behind it.

I for one cannot understand why the US and us in the UK give Pakistan so much funding when we know full well its a major supporter of terror across the world with its love of Shariah and all things Radical a known problem. I would not mind if the aid was going to the people but its lining the pockets of the nations corrupt officials and bar tiny gestures the poor people of whom there are FAR TOO MANY get nothing. Hell, they don't even have proper clean running water in many places yet they get a vast amount of aid and make a lot of money country wise.

I'm fed up with the "but look what the British Empire did" arguments, FFS people, you can't keep hitting a country forever, do we hate the current people of Germany for what the Nazi's did, of course not, you cannot forever use history as a ransom demand. Just look at the BLM movement, demanding cash for what happened hundreds of years ago by people who have no real connection to that history yet use it as a cheap shot demand. They don't give a damn about those slaves its just a use of entitlement in pretty much 99% of cases, more money to waste of an entitled lifestyle. We have many people who probably have ancestors that were in the slave trade but they know its a terrible part of history but its all about surviving NOW, they don't try and use it for demands, life is tough in the UK, there's no time for petty games, those on our benefits system don't have the same lavish lifestyle as the US folk, its tough here, no big cars and EBT cards here.

I'm all for wealthy countries helping poorer ones but when the help is being syphoned off as resources for corruption or terror than sadly we have to re-evaluate the way aid is given and even consider stopping certain forms of aid.

The money the UK provides to Pakistan could better serve our failing NHS system rather than making illegal millionaires of the officials.

Trump needs to be firm but not going off the rails, there's a difference from sounding like a mad man and being one, Trump may be trying a psychological tact but you have to be careful of the "put up or shut up" aspect.

a reply to: proteus33

While yes the USA is a top producer, the problem is that USA is still dependent on oil from other countries. If it wants to cut the ties, then the bottom line is that the USA either needs to get to a point where it is fully energy independent, where it makes more than what it can use. And that has not happened at all, yet. The last time the USA was on track to be energy independent, what happened was an election and the new President stopped that progress.


Controlling and putting the squeeze on energy lines, is nothing new, and has been done time and time again. And yet no war breaks out over it, rather talking happens and then in the end both sides coming to a new arrangement. Usually the side that is on the receiving end of such, makes changes to lessen their need for such, and each time it grows less and less effective.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Blender5L

he probably found that they too were shipping massive amounts of heroin to us. but seriously they got their own nukes us giving them a handout makes as much sense as england giving india billions of pounds sterling who has nukes and a space program when england does not.

Yeah and couldn't get more a more logical reaction, the world makes less sense than ever the more I look at this stuff going on in through back door deals.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

There are several northern distribution routes into Afghanistan which have been in use since before Obama’s “surge.”

NPR Story

Yes. There are trade-offs and expenses. There always are.

It may be more expensive to overland haul stuff instead of shipping via sea to Pakistan and then trucking it over but the northern routes have much less “shrinkage” due to theft and/or ambush because, for the most part, those northern routes don’t go through Tali controlled areas in Pakistan.

Also, we were paying Pakistan already. If we stop using passage from Kirachi to Afghanistan and stop our aid payments to them, those funds are freed up for the northern routes. Frankly, I’d rather any fees we pay for overland routes NOT go to Pakistan and their Tali connections.

Pakistan IS a regional power and they DO have nukes. They’re also shady af. We do need to engage with them on some level, obviously. But, there are other regional powers (also with nukes) and several up-and-comers in the AOR with whom, I feel, we’d be better served dealing with.

Look. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But facts are facts and quite honestly, it’s hard for me to take you seriously after some of the statements you’ve made in this thread. I was actually in Afghanistan during multiple deployments and this (and other Pakistan-related Issues) is some of the stuff we dealt with.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Trump needs to be firm but not going off the rails, there's a difference from sounding like a mad man and being one, Trump may be trying a psychological tact but you have to be careful of the "put up or shut up" aspect.

I agree