FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the Taliban keeps advancing, the situation in Pakistan is becoming more critical. Half a million people are expected to follow a government evacuation order and flee one region ahead of an expected military offensive. The Taliban claims they are in control of 90 percent of the Swat Valley about 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad. Pakistan's army started its assault on these militants about a week ago.
A Pakistani Islamist wears a cap bearing the slogan 'Go Taliban Go' during an anti-Taliban/anti-U.S. rally in Islamabad.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers want to triple non-military U.S. aid to Pakistan. A Senate bill would authorize 47.5 billion to Pakistan over the next five years to help boost economic growth and development; and another $7.5 billion for the five years after that. Never mind that the Bush administration gave billions and billions of dollars to Pervez Musharraf's government ostensibly to fight terrorism.
Senator John Kerry points out that an alarming percentage of Pakistanis now see the U.S. as a greater threat than al Qaeda; and there's little chance of ending the influence of these terrorist groups until we change that. That's what the additional non military aid would be used for.
President Obama - who is set to meet with the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan this week - has said he's gravely concerned about the situation there. Washington believes Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for now; but there is some concern that militants might try and seize them.
Here’s my question to you: In light of the increasing threat from the Taliban, should the U.S. triple non-military aid to Pakistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Dave from New York writes:
Yes, yes, and yes. This is the modern way you fight an insurgency like the Taliban. Think of it as a "free market" solution to terrorism: win people's hearts and make the Taliban unpopular.
Linda from Charleston, South Carolina writes:
No, it should triple aid to American people that are caught up in this society. You know, Jack, the jobless society that is allowing children to go hungry and live in tents in the U.S. The society that allows a single mother to suffer because the father of the children won't pay child support. The society where horses, dogs, and cats are dying because owners can't feed them. Give me a break to hell with Pakistan. We can't take care of our own people.
S. writes:
Why should all the money (or even the majority) come from the U.S.? The Taliban is not a U.S. problem, it is a global problem. The UN, EU, NATO and Arab alliance should all be doing their equal share of financing non-military aid to Pakistan. If the U.S. keeps financing the majority of these projects, then the international community will view the Taliban as a U.S. problem.
Dave from New York writes:
Yes, yes, and yes. This is the modern way you fight an insurgency like the Taliban. Think of it as a "free market" solution to terrorism: win people's hearts and make the Taliban unpopular.
Linda from Charleston, South Carolina writes:
No, it should triple aid to American people that are caught up in this society. You know, Jack, the jobless society that is allowing children to go hungry and live in tents in the U.S. The society that allows a single mother to suffer because the father of the children won't pay child support. The society where horses, dogs, and cats are dying because owners can't feed them. Give me a break to hell with Pakistan. We can't take care of our own people.
S. writes:
Why should all the money (or even the majority) come from the U.S.? The Taliban is not a U.S. problem, it is a global problem. The UN, EU, NATO and Arab alliance should all be doing their equal share of financing non-military aid to Pakistan. If the U.S. keeps financing the majority of these projects, then the international community will view the Taliban as a U.S. problem.
Sam writes:
Yes, in the long-run, we need the Pakistani people on our side. Right now, all they see are U.S. predator drones raining down missiles on their country. We need to change that image - and helping them build schools, hospitals, etc. is the way to go.
Gary writes:
Jack, Have we not wasted enough money the past several years? This is a joke. Are our elected officials really that foolish, naive and/or stupid? Also, where is the EU, invisible and inept as usual? Where is NATO, invisible and inept as usual? Why must it always be us? Hell, Jack, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, with no relief in sight.
Sam writes:
Yes, in the long-run, we need the Pakistani people on our side. Right now, all they see are U.S. predator drones raining down missiles on their country. We need to change that image - and helping them build schools, hospitals, etc. is the way to go.
Gary writes:
Jack, Have we not wasted enough money the past several years? This is a joke. Are our elected officials really that foolish, naive and/or stupid? Also, where is the EU, invisible and inept as usual? Where is NATO, invisible and inept as usual? Why must it always be us? Hell, Jack, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, with no relief in sight.