the united states should suspend all asistance to pakistan

==My Opponent's Case== Contention 1: Jeporadize Startegy My opponents argument makes the faulty assumption that aid eithera) Benefits the Pakistani Governmentorb) Will destroy the Pakistani GovernmentBoth of which fundamentally mean the same thing. However, I've already provided evidence on why aid is harmful to the situation of a country. If anything, the Pakistani government will improve and actually develop a more efficient way of eleminating terrorists. And the second situation, whereas Pakistan is completely destroyed. This simply makes it easier for the US government to carry out operations in that region of the world, due to the fact that they do not need to worry about relationships with Paksitan. Contention 2: Investing in Pakistan Well this is stupid... My opponent basically just spent an entire paragraph explaining how Pakistan's state is still horrible even after 60 years of aid and billions of dollars [1]. Isn't obvious that aid simply will *not* solve the problem? The only thing significant that occured in this paragraph was that my opponent claimed aid will incentivise Pakistan to turn to us instead of terrorists.However, aid only destroys the economy by reducing costs and competition. After all - local people have the choice of accepting "free" stuff from America or buying local goods. Soon, companies might even go bankrupt as America feeds Pakisistan money. Taking away aid will promote buisnesses and help Pakistan regrow.Furthermore, it's hopeless trying to sway the public opinion of America in Pakistan. Refer to my Contention 2, which explains that the general public hates America. Contention 3: Past Examples This contention doesn't make much sense to me. My opponent doesn't explain why suspending aid didn't work but only gives us a timeline of the periods where we gave aid and where we didn't. For all we know, during the periods that we suspended all aid, Pakistan witness tremendous growth and great success. I see no reason to argue against this contention. ==My Case== Contention 1: Aid Fails Once again, some aid might be helpful, but the majority is useless and wasted. Not to mention that my opponent only gave examples of future or in-progress projects and descriptions of how Pakistan's current situation is still bad, even after years and billions of aid. Obviously, blindly pumping aid into Pakistan is not the answer. My opponent also critizes my sources, but barely has any of his own.He tried to discredit my evidence from Djankov(2006) in my 14th source by saying it is too outdated, but this is all of the information that we have so far. Too bad my opponent didn't provide an alternative. He also criticized my number 15 source, quoting something that states that aid decreases corruption. This leads me to believe that this source has split views or describes split views as I find the following quote..."On the broader issue of aid and the political system, Knack (2000) uses several indices of political rights and ﬁnds noevidence that aid promotes democracy"My opponent then goes on to make the exagerrated, unsupported claim that Pakistan does not have any local resources.Pakistan has the ability to mine/refine uranium, copper, and gold with some local mines [2]. "Natural resources: Arable land, natural gas, limited oil, substantial hydropower potential, coal, iron ore, copper, salt, limestone.Agriculture: Products--wheat, cotton, rice, sugarcane, eggs, fruits, vegetables, milk, beef, mutton.Industry: Types--textiles & apparel, food processing, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, shrimp, fertilizer, and paper products." [3] Obviously, Pakistan has local resources it can use instead of foreign aid. Contention 2: Pakistan is a Doubtful Ally My opponent notices my usage of my contention title and my first statement. I believe my opponent is having trouble with his computer screen, hopefully.Doubtful means "unsure". I use doubtful, because some people (like my opponent) foolishly believe that Pakistan is still an ally..I also gave examples of how Pakistan directly opposed and did the opposite of what the America stated. For some reason, my opponent doesn't believe that this shows Pakistan is not our ally.Obviously, an ally would actually listen. Pakistan did no such thing. My opponent also claims the cause of all of the hatred is the war. This is irrelevent, because whether or not we keep or get rid of aid, military operations will likely go through and unintentionally harm Pakistan. Let's not compound it by giving them aid and hurting them even more. Also, India matters, because the majority of Pakistan hates India, and I've given examples of how the US supported India. To Pakistan, we're helping out their enemies. It also doesn't matter whether or not they are supporting terrorists. In fact, if Pakistan is actually supporting them, stopping aid will destroy the corrupted government. The majority of Pakistan (over 50%) have negative views regarding extremists groups [4]. The main problem is the corrupted government, which is still surviving due to aid that is keeping them alive. Stopping aid = stopping bad government, which leads to stopping extremist groups. We (actually Pakistan) would be able to stop/kill even more terrorists with a more efficient government and system. Contention 3: Chances of Death Regarding his point "1."Correct. You somewhat summarized my argument. In normal circumstances, the corrupt government would destroy itself - perhaps through revolution or just instability. However, aid that is being sent to them reduces their resposibility and allows them to look into other interests than the people's.Also, in Rwanda, the militias that had committed genociede received food, shelter and support, due to international aid, while their surviving victims were left poor[5].Most of the time, the aid goes to the most powerful, not the most needy [5]. His 2nd point...Wow. He provided no evidence to counter this theory, and disregarded it as "irrelevent". Nice going....I don't see how this is irrelevent. It could happen to Pakistan. His 3rd point...He contradicted his 2nd point. Now he says this would work? o.0! Anyways, they have extreme hatred towards India, and the government is corrupt (works with terrorists). Likely, the war will be directed towards India, instead of the terrorists.==Summary==1. Aid harms countries by crippling the economy and increasing corruption.2. Removing aid will improve Pakistan's situation and allow them to counter-terrorism more efficiently.3. Military operations will continue regardless of aid. Aid only makes it worse by killing more. ==Sources==[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[2] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk...[3] http://www.state.gov...[4] http://www.pewglobal.org...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...