Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Ever Heard of Pakistan?

Did you know that 2.4 million Pakistanis have been displaced as the U.S. and its proxy government in Pakistan bombs the crap out of residential areas in hopes of snagging a few Taliban fighters? Women and children are dying by the hundreds due to the bombs, not to mention the vast numbers dying in the deserts. I find this to be a strange way of going about protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism. How does enraging millions of members of a nation that is a nuclear power make us safe?

It's interesting to contrast coverage of these events with the displaced at Hurricane Katrina. If I'm reading the numbers right it looks like fewer than 30,000 people were stranded, most of whom were housed at the Superdome. In response hundreds of millions of dollars were pledged in aid from around the world, from such nations as Cuba and Venezuala. Why so little outcry about this far greater catastrophe in Pakistan? If I didn't happen to have a friend from Pakistan I'd probably know nothing about it.


HispanicPundit said...

I am curious Jon, what are your views on the North Korea situation? Some are proposing that we push China to threaten withholding energy and/or food supplies to put the pressure on them. I assume you disagree with that...but what do you offer?

Jon said...

I know less about the North Korean situation, but generally I recognize that withholding food and energy does nothing but further entrench the dictator. Saddam was high and dry and Iraqi's starved to death during our sanctions regime. This wasn't a threat to him in the least. What it did do is it enraged the populace. They're angry with Saddam too, but of course moreso with us. As you know OBL cited this as one of his reasons for the 9-11 attacks.

The same goes for Cuba. What has 50 years of embargoes gained us? Sure, they are poor and starving. Does this weaken Castro? I think he's still quite popular. Why do we even care? He's not a threat to us. Enraging the populace by imposing poverty on them because they elect people we don't approve of seems counterproductive to me, not to mention immoral.

I understand in N. Korea we ask them to stop the nuclear program and in exchange we'll provide them with energy. Then we only provide a fraction of the energy, so they drag their feet dismantling the program, and basically continue to go forward. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mandates that the nuclear powers provide the nuclear materials to the nations that refrain from developing the weapons in exchange for their willingness to not be involved in building weapons. Of course we provide those materials for energy uses. But we don't follow through on our part of the agreement, so they sort of do the same. It's to be expected.