The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

==Introduction==I will not be attacking my opponent's arguments in any way, because I agree with them. Mainly, I will be defending my contentions (sorry if this seems short)*Also, I found it annoying how you responded to my argument about aid leading to war in the wrong section. :P==Defending my arguments== C1: Aid hurts the recipientsMy opponent claims that even if aid is ineffective, some of it will reach it's recipients. However, the majority of Pakistan are suspicious of aid workers - claiming they are spies and demonizing them [1].The LA Times writes, "Nongovernmental organization visa requests languished or were outright rejected. New travel restrictions hampered aid workers' movement. Some workers were arrested and harassed." [1]. Political leaders also have a reduced incentive to improve a situation where large amounts of foreign aid is involved [2], and a study found that local governments will begin to reduce spending in an area where foreign assistance is being provided [3].Not only is the "aid" going to disappear due to corruption most of the time, but the local government will no longer concentrate in that area. Ultimately, the locals are going to suffer more than benefit from "aid".Although there still is the possibility have aid will help to some extent, people are still prevented from achieving the maximum amount of aid.Also, my opponent is misunderstanding my argument. By increasing suffering in specific parts of the world, we are actually returning things to their "natural state". By continuing on the path that humans are pursuing now, we will begin to see an unnatural decrease in suffering caused directly by humans - which will take away from the current value in human life. By attempting to increase suffering, we are able to undo the mistakes committed by the past, who believed in reducing suffering as much as possible. These two actions cancel each other out, resulting in a more stable situation.Continuing on to my Mahood evidence, my opponent misunderstands my argument. The fact that most of the aid doesn't reach the majority of Pakistan (who desperately need it), coupled with the fact that the government will naturally decrease spending in an area that foreign aid is being delivered to, reduces the amount of help that the Pakistanis would normally get, increasing suffering in terms of net benefits. Also, by increasing bad decision making and inciting laziness in the government, we take away from all areas together.Foreign aid can directly lead to war, which will result in heavy loss of human life. War is a natural cause of suffering - conquest and conflicts have always been in human history and part of human life. By prolonging the existence of war, we are able to understand the importance of life.C2: Pakistan isn't an allyI never questioned our ability to give aid, but I noted the obvious benefits of hurting an enemy. Of course, the ability to harm isn't dependent on relationships. However, it is more beneficial for us if we harm an enemy, not an ally.Also, my opponent's argument of how Pakistan becomes strengthened from aid and the US is weakened is obviously false. *coughcough I had an entire contention on how aid hurts people coughcough*The "lunch money" example provided by my opponent isn't valid, because the way he painted aid as isn't correct. A more accurate depiction of aid would be something like cocaine. It isn't something beneficial (like lunch money) that we are offering Pakistan, but a harmful substance such as cocaine (that may seem okay on the top).By ending assistance to Pakistan, we are basically helping our enemies.==Conclusion==In the end, by increasing suffering, we are countering any reduction in human suffering that we have experienced lately. We must understand the difference between unbalancing and rebalancing. And, as an added benefit, we would be destroying one of our enemies.Sources:[1] http://articles.latimes.com...[2] http://graduateinstitute.academia.edu...[3] Kelly Jones, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies SAIS REVIEW, 2005[4] http://www.csmonitor.com...[5] http://www.foreign.senate.gov...