U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

==My Arguments== C1: Generalities about foreign aidAid should be discontinued, if no apparent change in policy is approaching. Currently, USAID is inefficient and foreign aid itself can have negative effects. Even general effects can be applied to Pakistan if they are more likely than not. Taking chances and hoping Pakistan won't be one of the countries that aid eventually ruins isn't very smart for the US.Concerning my opponent's example of aid to Stalin, it was ultimately a bad decision since Stalin's regime killed more than Hitler's [1]. I doubt that the study done by Pittsburgh didn't take into account how some nations that receive aid already are democracies. It states "Democracy assistance is less effective in countries that receive a large percentage of U.S. military assistance... Because Iraq represented a foreign policy priority mainly for security reasons in 2004 (e.g., it received 23 percent of all security assistance in 2004, vis-à-vis 0.6 percent for the average eligible country) and it was also the largest recipient of democracy assistance (31 percent of all USAID DG funds spent in 2004), the overall impact of USAID DG was depressed when compared to a model including data for 1990-2003. In fact, once we allow the effect of USAID DG to be conditional on the U.S. security priority variable, the impact of the Iraq effect loses its statistical significance, indicating that it is in fact an extreme manifestation of a more general pattern by which democracy assistance is less powerful when the overall policy towards the recipient country is driven by security concerns. Our analysis also found that democracy assistance is less effective when investment is unstable, that is when funds are allocated to the recipient country in a volatile way. The findings suggest that in about half of the recipient countries the level of uncertainty in democracy investment may be high enough to compromise its impact. " My 6th source was a paper written by William Easterly, Prof of Economics at New York University. Development aid is another term to identify aid given by foreign governments/organization to support the economic, social, or political development in countries [2]. Most of this sort of aid is given by governments. I don't really see why my opponent believes most US aid is delivered through NGOs. US controlled aid is sent through the governmental agency USAID as seen here -->http://www.usaid.gov...My opponent also misunderstood when I made the argument that both sides wanted aid in the Egypt/Israel treaty. I was referring to the fact that Egypt accepted aid from the US, and hence it would agree to the treaty under the conditions that it received aid. On the other hand, popular opinion in Pakistan wants the US out and gone, as my previous arguments and past rounds have shown. C2: Pakistan is an enemy or ally?As of now, suspicions have been casted on the Pakistani government supporting the Taliban, even though polls show that people view extremist groups and the Taliban as a threat to their safety. Why is this? Foreign aid has been deteriorating their system, and the fact that the government isn't representing the people is supporting the theory that aid has failed in Pakistan. Aid is worsening their government and only reducing the ability of Pakistan to fight terrorists and help the US.==My opponent's arguments==Past aid cutsMy opponent hasn't really responded to my argument about the possibility of war between Pakistan and India growing into a major war between the US and China and perhaps World War 3. Too much foreign aid can lead to war, and Pakistan is likely to wage war against India. Pakistan would have China backing it up, since China already dislikes India. The US is allies with India and many citizens see China as an enemy. The possibility of a major war breaking out between China and the US is too big to ignore. Diplomats favor continuing aidOnce again, the opinion of diplomats isn't as important as the arguments to as why they have that opinion. Simply stating that they support foreign aid isn't enough, because we can't understand why. Congress has already cut off a chunk of aid to Pakistan, seeminly implying that some members of Congress want to stop aid.Also, being a diplomat doesn't seem to elevate them to a higher status then some other experts on foreign aid. This entire argument seemed to say that "diplomats have the most reliable opinion on foreign aid, which is why this argument is important."Generally, my sources agree that foreign aid can have negative effects. However, they might have differing views on how to solve the problem. My opponent hasn't really advocated for reform in USAID nor has he mentioned why/how the government will improve its aid policies. The solution I presented where we simply cut off aid now, then analyze the situation in the future and finally decide whether or not Pakistan truly needs aid when aid has the potential of actually helping the people instead of being abused by a corrupt government.My efficency argumentMy opponent claims that the purpose of aid in Pakistan is not to improve health/livin gstandards but to suppor the war against terrorism and stabilize the government. However, US Ambassador Patterson states, "The people of the United States have seen the plight of Pakistan's internally displaced and are committed to providing relief and aid [3]."Furthermore, since 2002, 3.4 billion has went to supporting economic growth, education and health in Pakistan. It seems like the US is trying to help the average person in Pakistan.Also, the threat of terrorists overthrowing the government in Pakistan doesn't exist, since popular opinion sees extremists as a threat. Unless terrorists can convince the people that they are not as bad as they sound, it doesn't seem practical to think that the terrorists have a chance at taking over the government. My sourcesSorry for not adressing this argument last round, as I was running out of room. Round 2 sources:C1 does in fact state that aid workers are being attacking by terrorists. My opponent claims that this means terrorists think aid is 'contrary to their interests'. I would say attacking aid workers is part of their interest - to hurt America and Western nations as much as possible. Stopping aid would make it harder for terrorists achieve their goal of...well terrorizing people =/. I apologize for sources 2, 3, and 4 since I didn't use them. I think I was intending to use them for some arguments and then deleted the arguments. Not sure what reallly happened there....C5 and C6 does in fact agree with your aid numbers but also give more detail to the amount of aid.C7 does indeed have a bunch of links when you first look at it, but scroll down and you'll find a podcast that I was using as evidence.C8 shows the existance of corruption when using foreign aid. How would one tighten controls? Send more aid workers to their death in Pakistan, hoping to end some corruption? C9 shows the opinion of an expert on aid. Ignore it if you want, since this source doesn't really amount to anything in my case.C10 happens to be a professor critizing how US foreign aid no longer concentrates on its actual goal of helping people anymore. C11 has many pages about foreign aid ( my opponent might have not noticed how you have to click on the next page ). It barely mentions anything about the Cold War on the first page.My opponent didn't mention anything about C12C13 may in fact recommend that the Global Fund be increased and etc, but also gives examples of how the US-Pakistan relations are worseningC14 concerns about how Pakistan is getting more and more angry at the USC15 is in fact a poll about opinions in Pakistan.C16 can be found on google books.C17 analyzes the effect of aidSources[1] http://www.nybooks.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://islamabad.usembassy.gov...