From: az1@ukc.ac.uk (A.Zafar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: US military assistance to Bangladesh
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: az1@ukc.ac.uk (A.Zafar)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <1992Nov10.045701.26230@njitgw.njit.edu> fxm4993@hertz.njit.edu (Farhan Muhammad) writes:
>
>	Nadeem Malik is right!!! plese say no to U.S. Aid right now, and
>	save a  good future for your country...
>
>	I perceive the U.S. Aid as an alm...
>	It would probably look very charming in the begining because one
>	has all these money flowing in his country, but in long terms its
>	a source of big disastrers for a nation..
>
>	You might be able to feel the lethalness of the USAid from the 
>	following examples...
>
>	Just for once consider a poor person, who has been mouth fed by
>	some lunatic rich person, the rich person continuous it for years 
>	since its doesnot effect his economic state any significantly.
>	And after few years he suddenly stops feeding the poor one..
>	Now what do you think is going to happen to the poor soul..
>	Offcourse he will pass through an epitomic state of disasters.
>        He is no more used to of working hard and earning his food
>	with his own hands.

	This is an interesting example. If you are using a person who appears
to be on the edge of starvation, then he should take the food and build
himself up. He can then work and maybe pay back. If he is not starving then
he should use the money in investment. Like maybe a company taking a loan
from the bank. The example seems to me as a lazy, starving person in which
case you do not tell him to reject the food but accept it to survive and
then make sure that a similar situation does not arise again.

>	This is exactly what happened to Panama few years ago, when US
>	suddenly stoped their Aids. Panama government didn't even have
>	enough money to pay their govenrment employees...
>
>	Will any nation ever prefer this humiliation by a Super Power ?
>	After the Panama's example, and what Americans recently did to
>	Pakistan I don't think anyone will be in fever of US Aids to 
>	their contries..

	I do not agree with this. The US has not been giving aid to these
countries because it loves them. It has it's interests. There is no great
movement in the US to give Pakistan Humanitarian aid so all money flowing in
is essentially going to be because it is in the US interest. The mistake was
ours that we took it as our 'right' to get the aid. I had people telling me
throughout my life time that the US will not cut aid because it needs us.
Well, now they do not need us very much at all and we should not cry about
it. What amazes me is that everyone claims to know that US does things
because it is in it's interest, then accepts aid and then cry foul when it
is stopped. Just why do you use the word 'humiliation' here?

>	It has been the policy of US government to manupilate the small
>        nations in its hands,for long time now.. Giving the money to small

	I think this is the policy of most countries. Only, US is the most
influential and hence is most noted.

>	So, why depend on others to provide for ours needs..???
>	I would personaly prefer to eat less, work hardest and live happily 
>	with peace.

	Aid should not be accepted as a substitute for work but something
which will give the country a boost. It should be treated as a buisness deal
to see whether it is worth it.

>	Remeber:  a grain earned by own hands taste much better than the
>	whole bread fed by others.
>		NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR CAPABILITES. 
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Exactly. Take aid ONLY if it is feasible. Build yourself up like
Japan and Germany and then give aid. After all US was looking after Japan's
defence, not exactly aid but enabling them to channel money into productive
areas instead.
	
--
			 - Aman Zafar 			_   /|
			 - University of Kent 		\'o.O'
			 - England. 			=(___)=	
							   U
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan