Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Finally got one!

Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:49:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello,
I hope that this mail will meet you in good condition. My name is Miss Sindy johnson. I am origin of Rwanda, but living in Senegal currently. I am a young pretty single girl. your profile attracted me while i was searching to meet my better half. i would like to get acquainted with you, since tribe, distance and age does not matter to me. I will like you to write me with my email address, so that i can explain to you more about me along with my picture. Here is my email (sindy86johnson@ yahoo.com)
Awaiting your reply.
sindy

Sent back this:

"It is widely held that success in Afghanistan cannot come without the close engagement and cooperation of Pakistan, and that the key to stabilizing Afghanistan is to improve the longstanding animosity between Islamabad and Kabul." Kronstadt K, Alan. Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Rep. Congressional Research Service.

"Despite legitimate concerns about Pakistan's loyalties, it remains in the United States' national security interest to maintain our bilateral relationship with Pakistan."

"Now is not the time to disengage from Pakistan. A flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement." US Admiral Mike Mullen.

Because I agree with these quotes, I stand in firm negation of todays resolution, Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

For the purpose of todays debate, I offer the following definitions from blacks law dictionary:

All: The whole number or sum of

Suspend: To stop or cease

Assistance: to contribute effort to reach a certain goal.

It is for three main reasons that I strongly negate the resolution:

Suspension would only make things worse, Pakistan is in a state of dire need due to their new generation of terrorists, third, Pakistan needs our help, and fourth, Pakistan really wants consistency.

First, Suspension would only make things worse.

As history has shown us, cutting aid to Pakistan gets us nowhere. When the United States cut aid to Pakistan over the nuclear program in the 90s, Pakistan immediately turned to the Taliban. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, "As relations with the United States deteriorated, Pakistan pursued ties with the Taliban--part of its 'strategic depth' initiative to counter India and bring ‘stability' to Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation. It also continued an aggressive nuclear program too, complete with disastrous global proliferation." Evidence exists to suggest that cutting aid this time would be no different. For one, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are poorly secured. As the Combating Terrorism Center notes, "As the number of nuclear weapons facilities grows, and the number of those with access to nuclear weapons or related components rises, the complex challenge of assuring the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components will become ever more difficult." Indeed, over 70,000 people already have some degree of access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons and terrorists have already proven capable of infiltrating even Pakistan's most secure military bases. With the United States' aid out of the picture, the security of Pakistan's nukes deteriorates quickly. Next, Pakistan has already established significant international ties that could make cutting aid even worse this time around. New Islamabad allies range from Iran to Saudi Arabia –both of whom have expressed interest in nuclear weapons. Reports from the Brookings Institute even argue that plans already exist to share weaponry with the Saudis. Clearly, driving Pakistan further away by cutting aid is not the right thing to do given the huge risk for proliferation—either by design or by accident.

Second, Pakistan is in a state of dire need due to their new generation of terrorists. From the council on foreign relations:

According to some estimates, the Pakistani Taliban collectively have around thirty-thousand to thirty-five thousand members. Among their other objectives, the TTP has announced a defensive jihad against the Pakistani army, and enforcement of sharia. Pakistani authorities accused the group's former leader, Baitullah Mehsud, of assassinating former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

So why are we going to abandon a country that has over THIRTY-THOUSAND dangerous operating within it, and obviously needs help, as the council goes on to say,

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to confront these domestic militants. As this Backgrounderpoints out, efforts are underway to reform the forces, but challenges remain in terms of capabilities to fight some of these militant groups. Security forces, especially the army and the police, have increasingly become the target for the militant groups. In October 2009, militants attacked the army headquarters in Rawalpindi and held around forty people hostage for over twenty hours.

Now what is going to happen when we suspend aid? Either Pakistan is going to fall and come under the rule of these terrorists, or will be forced to use payoffs to stay safe, but they will always live under this oppressive rule. And therefore:

Third, Pakistan needs our help.

From the US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter

Pakistani politicians do not want Americans to go away. "What they want is partnership and a better sense of respect, "Munter said. "We need to expand to get them out of a certain narrative they have created about the U.S. We have to be less arrogant." Munter said it was imprudent to ask if Pakistan loves America or vice versa.

Fourth, Pakistan really wants consistency.

According to Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation:

The U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in economic assistance to Pakistan over the past nine years, but Pakistanis complain that there is little to show for it. Continuing civilian aid programs demonstrate that the U.S. is not a fickle partner and is genuinely committed to a prosperous and stable Pakistan, even if the military intelligence relationship between the two countries is fraying.

See, The Pakistani's don't like us because they consider the US a fair weather friend. They believe that we will simply pull out when times get tough. Which we have done in the past. Which we will do if you, judge, believe we should.. Is that their fault that they don't like us? No. Is it ours? Yes. We must show them consistency, and show that we are willing to help even in the tough times.

So, for all of these contentions, I ask for a CON vote on your ballot. Thank you.

Hope that throws off the stalker...
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:55:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bah. Send them inordinate amounts of spam by signing their e-mail up to all the porn sites.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:56:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 4:55:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Bah. Send them inordinate amounts of spam by signing their e-mail up to all the porn sites.

But I don't watch porn....

But wait! I have tons of other spam that I can signthem up for!
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 4:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not exactly sure its something to be so excited about...
Put the PM in the love spam thread and report the profile.
Debate.org Moderator