US Army begins relief missions in Pakistan
August 5th, 2010 . by TexasFredUS Army begins relief missions in Pakistan
KALAM, Pakistan (AP) - U.S. army choppers flew their first relief missions in Pakistan’s flood-ravaged northwest Thursday, airlifting hundreds of stranded people to safety from a devastated tourist town and distributing emergency aid.
Elsewhere, authorities began evacuating half-a-million people as Pakistan’s worst monsoon rains in decades threatened new destruction.
The floods have already killed an estimated 1,500 people over the past week, most in the northwest, the center of Pakistan’s fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban. An estimated 4.2 million Pakistanis have been affected, including many in eastern Punjab province, which has seen numerous villages swallowed by rising water in recent days.
The flooding is one of several crises that has hit Pakistan since mid-July, including a suicide bombing in the northwest city of Peshawar, a plane crash that killed 152 people in the capital, and a spurt of politically motivated killings that have left dozens dead in the southern city of Karachi.
Full Story Here:
US Army begins relief missions in Pakistan
So, here we go again…
More of OUR hard earned TAX DOLLARS being spent to render aid to a nation that may be hiding Osama Bin Laden. A nation that is rumored to be secretly supplying the Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. You know the ones I am referring to? Right? The guys that are planting roadside IEDs and killing our troops? Yeah… THOSE GUYS…
Foreign governments and aid agencies have stepped into help.
Well good for them, a star in their crowns I’m certain. And rest assured, this has little to do with humanitarian aid, it’s all about political posturing.
The United States is unpopular in Pakistan, and Washington will be hoping the relief missions will help improve its image, however marginally. But the mission could draw criticism from nationalist politicians and others in Pakistan who are hostile to the idea of American boots on the ground, even if they are helping after a disaster.
Washington will be hoping the relief missions will help improve its image. That pretty much says it all. Obama and Company are trying to prove to the Pakistanis that America is going to bleed itself dry for them too. Obama is trying to impress his Muslim brothers.
The U.S. military carried out larger operations in the aftermath of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, as it did in predominantly Muslim Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami. Those missions went smoothly and were credited with boosting Washington’s reputation there.
Well, now it’s MY turn — BLAME BUSH. In 2004 and 2005 George Bush was the President and once again America responded to disaster a world away.
That’s what we DO, we are Americas and we have always responded when the world needed help. But you won’t hear Obama and Company giving any *props* to George Bush for HIS humanitarian efforts.
There is something I want to share with my readers, I didn’t give ONE RED CENT to aid the Malaysian tsunami relief, nor did I give anything to help the relief efforts in Kashmir or anywhere else for that matter. Including Haiti after the huge earthquake there.
What’s next? Are we going to send American fire fighters to help in and around Moscow? Thick smog from raging wildfires engulfs Moscow, because quite frankly, I don’t remember ANY Russian relief being sent to America the last time Southern California lit up.
I am all for helping our friends, but Pakistan and Malaysia are not our friends, they are Muslim nations and will turn on America at the drop of an Imams turban. Russia isn’t our friend. They still seek to destroy this nation. And seriously, when have any of those nations jumped in to help us in a time of need here in America?
There is always a *silver lining* so I am told, since the quake in Kashmir and the tsunami in Malaysia, we’ve heard a lot less of the DEATH TO AMERICA cries. 
Since I mentioned Haiti… I didn’t give anything there because the nation of Haiti is what I consider to be the personification of corruption, and I am NOT going to give my dollars so they can be stolen by corrupt officials so they can live in the lap of luxury while their nation and citizens suffer.
The Pakistani government response to the floods has been criticized, especially because President Asif Ali Zardari left for a visit to Europe soon after the crisis began.
A leader that isn’t helping his own people? I realize that President Asif Ali Zardari isn’t going to be on scene, leading rescue operations in the 1st person, but his presence on scene would be a good thing. His presence, in close proximity to this disaster would do much to bolster the the spirits of his citizens and to instill some confidence in his office.
President Zardari - ever fearful of militant threats - rarely makes public appearances even when he is in Pakistan.
A few months ago, he agreed to constitutional reforms that transferred many of his presidential powers to the prime minister, leaving him more of a figurehead.
So, a figurehead President huh? An elected official that’s afraid to make an appearance, or, to make waves and get involved in matters that may be defined as conflict. Where have I heard that before? 
Useless leaders aren’t leaders at all, they are figureheads and need to be removed from whatever place of power they hold, be it national, state, local or social. A Casper Milquetoast persona does NOT make a good leader. A LEADER leads by example and by standing up to the opposition.
One other thing, being a good leader doesn’t always make you the most popular kid on the block either. But LEADERSHIP is not a popularity contest. It’s a job, a duty, and a real leader rises to the occasion, he doesn’t relinquish his duties to others and avoid the public while slinking away to some other place to hide.
I refuse to help our enemies. I refuse to help corrupt nations or gutless leaders, of ANY ilk.
I wish America would do the same!
And how do those (enemies, actually) that America “helps” react? With gratitude? Nope.
Hell, even helping our foreign allies often gets thrown back into our teeth.
Do I sound like an isolationist? Well, to a certain extent, I am!
We’ve got woes here at home in America. And we need to address them instead of spending our blood and treasure overseas.
The USA has given more aid to foreign nations in times of disaster than ALL other nations combined. So while the communists/socialist/marxists around the globe and here at home are trying to destroy our nation, who steps up when we no longer can? Where do you run to when the last island of freedom is gone?
When we decide to fight to keep what was built over 200 yrs ago, its not going to be pretty. But it is going to be necessary.
I helped during OUR national disasters. With Dollars, time and effort. I haven’t been, nor will I be giving to charity anymore until the socialist in chief becomes an EX. They seem to think they can spend tax payer money for their projects so they are going to have to do it. This is why charitable giving drops under the anti-business, big government, tax and spend idiots…Oh well.
Seems to me that quote; “So, a figurehead President huh? An elected official that’s afraid to make an appearance, or, to make waves and get involved in matters that may be defined as conflict. Where have I heard that before?”
Reminds me of some of the “tea party” nutless around the nation these days.
Hope those pilots are gaining some intel while there. Think India will offer aid? lol.
You cannot help an Islamist and expect gratitude. On the second attempt, Islamists finally brought down the world trade center and now NY City is going to allow them to build a Mosque at the site to honor the murders and spit in the face of those who suffered. Mayor Bloomberg thinks if he allows the Mosque to be built, the Islamists will leave his city alone. Bloomberg doesn’t realize that Islamists look at pacification and compromise as a sign of weakness. Weakness to an Islamist is like blood to a Piranha; it drives them on.
I wish we would just send them a 100 megaton care package.
A credible foreign policy requires carrots and sticks. At the moment we are mostly carrot. So of course this gets taken advantage of. Just remember in an age of intercontinental industrial warfare and industrial nation-state enabled non-state actors with access to rapid transportation and transnational intercourse, isolationism is untenable.
The Muslim infection has almost overwhelmed Europe despite Europe’s disengagement with the third world. The infection is already here in North America, along with the cancer of ideological subversion and cultural Marxism.
Beware Libertarianism; it is the flip side of the Marxist coin, and will drain away the will to fight for hearth, home, blood and soil just as much as race and class based social guilt.
Evil only prospers when good men do nothing. Well folks, evil is prospering; innocent babies are murdered, marriages are torn apart, alien, heretical, and inimical religions and ideologies are allowed to spread, and Christianity is everywhere suppressed. Less than 10% of the people do the fighting and dying while pacifists deride them and claim halos for their dishonesty, and Paleo-cons and Libertarians complain about the cost of fighting our enemies where they live instead of here.
The fact is our Legions are over there and getting them back out again without having a disaster on our hands is going to be tricky. While there is a conversation to be had on the uses of coercive forces abroad, now is not the time to invite stampede towards the exits. We’re in the cave of horrors, but the best way out is forward.
Not to get too off topic…but a comment in the article caught my attention. Fred, you stated that LEADERSHIP is not a popularity contest. I agree wholeheartedly that being a good leader means having to do things that will make a leader unpopular. However, in order to become that leader, you really do have to win the ulitimate popularity contest.
Reading your statement made me realise a truly big flaw in our system of government. In order to become the leader you have to pander to the voters. If you don’t, the voters won’t pick you as their leader. You have to be the most popular person or you don’t win. And, once you become leader, if you don’t keep being popular, you don’t get to stay the leader when the next popularity contest comes around.
I can only imagine the number of times as a kid I would have voted for new parents had I been given the opportunity every few years. It’s was not until much later that I realized that even the things I hated, was really for my benefit. I think many voters think like this today. They have the attitude of “give me something” or “what’s in it for me” or they don’t give their vote to that person. They don’t care if it is what is best for them or not. They pick the most popular guy.
So, I guess my point is, how does a person get to be leader and still do the right thing once they become that leader. Obama is living proof that you can be rewarded for being a lousy leader. All he had to do was be popular. All those times he voted “present” and avoided controversy just so that he could be liked. Being popular worked for him. And now that he is in control, he is continuing to try and be popular to the right people that he thinks will keep him in power.
I supposed the system works if, AND ONLY IF, enough people who vote, do so for the right reasons. NOT because they will get free stuff. I think we are in this mess we are today because more people are voting today for the popular guy and not the guy that will do the right thing. Even if it means telling voters “NO” and being unpopular.
Also, once a person gets into politics for all the right reasons, they end up compromising their beliefs because they have to in order to stay in the game. They learn that in order to keep that cushy job and gov’t benefits, they have to become and remain popular. The inherent flaw in the system, but I can’t think of a better way.
Sorry for the hijack, but the article got me thinking.
I gave for Katrina relief, every Christmas time to the Salvation Army and Toys for Tots. I give for Wounded Warriors and to the USO. But not to nations that never even offered to help us.
Keep your charity dollars here at home, donate locally!
@ sdkar
You don’t think the Founders ever intended universal unearned franchise do you? The original constitution was profoundly anti-democratic in the sense of direct participatory Greek-city-state style democracy.
There’s your answer, Republics can only survive whilst the electorate is moral and wise enough not vote themselves bread and circuses from the public treasury.
Traditional solution; property or military service requirements for franchise or office.
sdkr - If you do the right thing when the situation calls for it along with showing some backbone you’re a leader. If all you want is to be popular, forget it.
sdkar — You never were a Senior NCO or an Officer in the military were you?
“Washington will be hoping the relief missions will help improve its image. That pretty much says it all.”
It sure does! Everything this administration does in regards to foreign policy is done for image alone, not substance. Next thing you know we will allow a Mosque to be built at ground…..uh, wait, nevermind.
Fred,
No I was never in the military. I came very close and to this day regret not giving service to my country.
However, I was a police officer. If I am getting your point correctly, I believe you are referring to a code or ethics or honor in doing a job and leading for the right reasons. (please let me know if I am off base on this.)
What I have seen is officers who were honorable or did their job to the best of the abilities. I have found that there are two types of officers. Those that are truly great cops and those that rise through the ranks. Being moral and just will get you up to Sgt. and even Lt. However, and I would say this applies to 3 out of 4 officers. In order to rise above the rank of Capt. you sell a piece of your soul. There is a single Capt. except for one that I could recall, that did not become a politician. They forgot where they came from. Some made the change because they always had it in them to do what was best for them and screw everyone else. Others that gained rank, did so begrudgingly, but in many ways, had to play the game in order to get ahead. We used to joke that there was something about brass (the medal) that caused good cops to become jerks.
If I get your reference correctly, I think that the military may be a greater exception to the rule. Yes there are still the assholes that will step on anyone and lose their “honor” in order to get ahead, but I think they are exactly that…that exception. The military instills a sense of honor, duty and pride that you just do not commonly see in other profession, such as politicians. I was a cop for many years and come from a large family of cops, both retired and still on the job. Police officers wear a uniform and carry a weapon, just like the military. But cops to not acknowledge the same “honor to duty” that our military guys do. I really do think it would be unfair to our guys in green to compare them to our guys in blue. To compare a Lt. or Capt. in the armed forced to the same rank in law enforcement is just plain not the same at all.
In all, if you are referring to the honor of duty and leadership of our military then I agree 100%. I just wish that we could have this same attitude apply to our politicians. Also, you would think a military man would be a perfect choice for politics (Allen West comes to mind), but then there are the likes of John F’ing Kerry and McCain. I guess sometimes even the best of training doesn’t take.
I am writing this because I found the article provacative. I am not even sure if my current views are even right or wrong…just typing my thoughts out in order to put the idea through my thinking process and ponder the aspect. Thanks for the insight.