Black Stone
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
$100bn?...just wow.
Zardari seeks $100 billion for Pakistan's survival
- Thread starter pkpatriotic
- Start date
opinion786
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 0
1- Has he given any feasibilty report on how he intends to spend those $100 billion?
2- Has he seeked approval of Parliament for this $100 billion? As loan cannot exceed beyond 50% of our GDP.
3- Where is the Prime Minister of the country??? Or has the parliament accepted that there's a presidential style government running? What was wrong with a civilian Musharraf?
4- From so-called 'Friends of Pakistan' he was begging $15 billion and now he hints at begging $100 billion? Earlier $15 billion were adequate but now our economy requires $100 billion? How did he calculate this difference within one week?
5- What policies have been made to control our trade deficit & preserve our foreign reserves & instill trust in our investors?
The fact remains that since PPP came to power above $29 billion have been shifted from KSE's market capitalization to Dubai etc. KSE worth fell from $75 billion to $46 billion.
Our foreign reserves fell from $16 billion to $8.5 billion.
Had Zardari made any efforts to stop this drainage of $29 billion of KSE... we could have avoided carrying this begging bowl.
How does one judge wisdom? Flush $29 billion and beg for $15 billion ....
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
when i read the morning paper, i was laughing so hard i fell off my throne!!!
wonder what he is smoking?
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I feel that democracy should be given a fair chance. If the people of Pakistan have given their votes and support to peoples party than let them (peoples party) do whatever they think is right for the country, and as far as Mr 10% is concerened I think It was quiet obvious after the death of BB that this man is going to be the next chairman of the party, yet PP got the majority.
Now he is an elected president and we cant do anything about it. Just wait for the elections and his party will be ****** out.
Now he is an elected president and we cant do anything about it. Just wait for the elections and his party will be ****** out.
DarkStar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
The issue is not letting Democracy get a chance. The problem is that the current crop of democratic leaders are not of a sufficient calibre to lead a nation of 160 million people, given the economic,military,geo-political pitfalls that lie ahead. Pakistan has developed in fits and starts, growth usually coming during military dictatorships, while the gains made being wiped out by the politicians. Recently, The only democratic govt under whom we progressed economoically was the first govt of Nawaz Sharif.
As for the people giving Zardari a mandate by voting the PPP in power, that is no such thing. Most people would not have beleived that Zardari would be able to engineer the Presidenthsip for himself. If anything, they voted for Zulifqar Ali And BBs legacy, which was at the time being carried forward by people like Makhdoom Amin Fahim.
Zardari has no such mandate from the people, and has stolen the Presidency from both the people, and the people's party.
Zardari is not asking for loan but a grant.
He does not want even the word Aid to be used. Correct me if I am wrong, so Pakistan does not need to repay the $100 billion if provided, which is good for Pakistan. In that case why the forum members are opposing Zardari?
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Grant, aid or loan, my dear the problem is that all that money is going into the pocket of Zardari thats why we are objecting to it.
We have no objection if zardari asks for the same in his own name but we indeed have a big objection to the use of Pakistan's name for this money.
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The issue is not letting Democracy get a chance. The problem is that the current crop of democratic leaders are not of a sufficient calibre to lead a nation of 160 million people, given the economic,military,geo-political pitfalls that lie ahead. Pakistan has developed in fits and starts, growth usually coming during military dictatorships, while the gains made being wiped out by the politicians. Recently, The only democratic govt under whom we progressed economoically was the first govt of Nawaz Sharif.
My friend,
Only the dictators in Pakistan get the full support (financial and military) of International community. i.e USA. Because they can exploit the dictators more effectively. As soon as the democratic Govt takes charge, the US and its allies cut the aid and support of Pakistan just because they have to deal with a lot of people as compared to a dictator and as a result people like us are made to belive that Pakistan has progresse under dictatorship.
As for the people giving Zardari a mandate by voting the PPP in power, that is no such thing. Most people would not have beleived that Zardari would be able to engineer the Presidenthsip for himself. If anything, they voted for Zulifqar Ali And BBs legacy, which was at the time being carried forward by people like Makhdoom Amin Fahim.
Now dont tell me they were expecting Zardari to handover chairmanship of PPP to Ameen Fahim and and stay out.
They have seriously underestimated the skills of Mr Zardarii and now we all have to face the consequences.
My friend,
Only the dictators in Pakistan get the full support (financial and military) of International community. i.e USA. Because they can exploit the dictators more effectively. As soon as the democratic Govt takes charge, the US and its allies cut the aid and support of Pakistan just because they have to deal with a lot of people as compared to a dictator and as a result people like us are made to belive that Pakistan has progresse under dictatorship.
As for the people giving Zardari a mandate by voting the PPP in power, that is no such thing. Most people would not have beleived that Zardari would be able to engineer the Presidenthsip for himself. If anything, they voted for Zulifqar Ali And BBs legacy, which was at the time being carried forward by people like Makhdoom Amin Fahim.
Now dont tell me they were expecting Zardari to handover chairmanship of PPP to Ameen Fahim and and stay out.
They have seriously underestimated the skills of Mr Zardarii and now we all have to face the consequences.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
oh come on. the polticians have been eating up all the finencial aid in the past.Atleast "dictators" did not pocket the money for themsleves
.And as far ghadari is concerned well he was brought by the CIA not the people.
The only skill he posses is his tharkiness
Pk_Thunder
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,270
- Reaction score
- 0
Atleast "dictators" did not pocket the money for themsleves
And as far ghadari is concerned well he was brought by the CIA not the people.
The only skill he posses is his tharkiness
@tharkiness....he has become a thurki soon after his wife death.he is looking someone to get married..instead of sarah palin,condoliza is a good match for him
maqsad
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
Looks like Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan has decided that if his country is to be sold or rented, it won't be free or for dirt cheap as was the case with his predecessor Agent Mushy! All the people who criticize this guy for selling pakistan as a servant for $100 billion forget so quickly that Agent Mushy sold Pakistan for free as a slave!
This man is not content to have Pakistan auctioned off at bargain basement prices and he will squeeze every penny possible out of everyone with pockets. This is important in order to fight the war on nouns.
But still, think positive--going from slave to servant is an upgrade!
This man is not content to have Pakistan auctioned off at bargain basement prices and he will squeeze every penny possible out of everyone with pockets. This is important in order to fight the war on nouns.
But still, think positive--going from slave to servant is an upgrade!
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Dear jana,
I am not defending our politicians, I know that their performance has been very poor but we need to understand that their corruptions have not hurt the country as bad as the wrong and American influenced policies of these dictators.
We have already lost half of our country due to these ******* policies of a dictator, and the rest is at stake.
As far as zardari's match is conerned, I think Sarah, condolezza and sherry..all have been shortlisted..Who would you like to have as the first lady of the country???
I am not defending our politicians, I know that their performance has been very poor but we need to understand that their corruptions have not hurt the country as bad as the wrong and American influenced policies of these dictators.
We have already lost half of our country due to these ******* policies of a dictator, and the rest is at stake.
As far as zardari's match is conerned, I think Sarah, condolezza and sherry..all have been shortlisted..Who would you like to have as the first lady of the country???
WSJ: Asif Ali Zardari used to sport a full moustache, jet black and rakish in the style of the avid polo player he once was. But sometime in the past year he trimmed it short and let its salt-and-pepper colors show. It befits the sober role he has now assumed, at 53, as the president of Pakistan, probably the world's most difficult -- and dangerous -- political job.
Mr. Zardari shows no signs that he is stepping into that role diffidently. In an interview last Saturday with The Wall Street Journal, held under tight security at a midtown Manhattan hotel, he crafted his phrases in a tone of command. Pakistan's war, he says, is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." When he discusses Pakistan's economic crisis -- the central bank has about two months' worth of foreign currency reserves left to pay for the country's imports of oil and food -- he says he looks to the world to "give me $100 billion."
For a man who has been president for less than a month, that's an ambitious request -- all the more given his checkered past. Mr. Zardari is, of course, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, the former two-time Pakistani prime minister assassinated last December shortly after her tumultuous return from an eight-year exile. He invokes her name repeatedly throughout our interview, at times to stress the importance he attaches to women's rights and empowerment, at other times to underline how personally he takes the threat of Islamic radicalism.
But Mr. Zardari is also known as "Mr. Ten Percent," a moniker he acquired thanks to his legendary reputation for graft. At one time or another, he and his late wife were suspected of profiting (or seeking to profit) from corrupt schemes involving everything from the purchase of Polish tractors and French jets to the import of gold bullion. In 2006, he even produced a diagnosis of dementia from two New York psychiatrists as part of an effort to defend himself in a corruption case in Britain.
These days, Mr. Zardari seems to be in excellent mental health -- if indeed he was ever unwell. Nor does he seem particularly vexed by his own past notoriety: All charges against him were eventually dropped in a political deal the previous government of President Pervez Musharraf struck with Bhutto, and as president he enjoys legal immunity. As for the broader corruption concerns, he all but waves them away as irrelevant. The corruption issue, he says, "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to sully democracy's good name. Foreign investors, he adds, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."
That last observation may come as news to at least a few investors -- Pakistan ranked near the bottom of Transparency International's corruption perception index in 1995, the last full year during which Bhutto was in power. Investors might also have memories of the circumstances in which Bhutto's second government collapsed in 1996.
"Since her re-election to office in 1993, [Ms. Bhutto] has run roughshod over strict fiscal and economic targets laid out by the International Monetary Fund for Pakistan's anemic economy," wrote Journal reporter Peter Waldman in November 1996. "In one of her more perplexing moves, she kept the Finance Ministry portfolio for herself, making it virtually impossible for her coalition government to muster the political will to curb Pakistan's gaping budget deficit. The lack of confidence in her government recently reached crisis proportions, with Pakistan's foreign-currency reserves plummeting below $700 million, or less than a single month's imports." At the time, Mr. Zardari occupied the post of Pakistan's minister of investments, reporting to his wife.
Put simply, the economic crisis Mr. Zardari faces today is, at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him. He alludes to this problem only once in the interview, noting that before he can hope to get foreign help he will "have to make my credibility, my case." Still, he has a simple and powerful argument to make that the world cannot allow his government to fail -- not when it's becoming increasingly plausible that Pakistan itself, with its stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads, could be toppled by al Qaeda and its allies.
"I need your help," he says more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it."
In asking for the help -- and $100 billion is no small request, even (or particularly) in the age of AIG -- Mr. Zardari is keen to insist that it not be described as aid. "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"
To his credit, Mr. Zardari's answer involves more than simply passing around the collection plate. When I ask whether he would consider a free-trade agreement with traditional archenemy India, Mr. Zardari responds with a string of welcome, perhaps even historic, surprises. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he says, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad." He speaks of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allows that he has no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"
Not only does Mr. Zardari want better ties with Delhi, he notes that "there is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbors first." He imagines Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India's huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones. For a country that spent most of its existence trying to show that it's the military equal of its neighbor, the agenda amounts to a remarkable recognition of the strides India has made in becoming a true world power.
But before Pakistan can hope to save itself by completely reshaping the situation on its eastern frontier, it has the more pressing problem of resolving the crisis to its west, in its tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. On the day of our meeting, there had been reports that Pakistani army forces had fired on U.S. aircraft operating along the border with Afghanistan, while Pakistani officials were taking an ever-tougher line against NATO commando raids against the Taliban on Pakistani soil.
Mr. Zardari seems anxious to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he says, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He goes off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledges that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."
He also acknowledges the problem that had bedeviled past efforts at U.S.-Pakistani cooperation, particularly in intelligence sharing: the widely held suspicion that Pakistani intelligence services continue to cooperate with, and even arm, the Taliban. "You know, you keep an uglier alternative around so that you may not be asked to leave," he says, in reference to Mr. Musharraf's habit of fighting Islamic radicals with one hand while protecting them with the other. Mr. Zardari refuses to go into further detail other than to say he "solved the problem"; the head of Pakistani intelligence was fired earlier this week.
Mr. Zardari seems to hope that, with the intelligence problem out of the way, a new era of cooperation can open up with the U.S. "We want to be able to share [U.S.] intelligence," he says. "We need helicopters, we need night goggles, we need equipment of that sort." He stresses the need for precision and finesse in fighting Islamic militants, rather than large-scale military force. "My eventual concept is that we should be taking them on as they are, as criminals." Of Osama bin Laden he says, "the minute I make anybody my enemy, he becomes as big as I am."
In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asks. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."
The effects of such a disparity are increasingly in evidence. The recent bombing of Islamabad's Marriott hotel, in an area that is under particularly tight security controls, is a fresh reminder that Pakistan's terrorist problem extends well beyond the tribal hinterlands.
Speaking of the attack, Mr. Zardari again brings the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asks. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."
It's a fair point. And it leads Mr. Zardari to a kind of peroration, the case he has to make that he is, after all, the right man for Pakistan in its hour of peril -- however improbable that may seem given everything that is known or suspected about his past.
"You know, every life has its end," he says. "So, before mine ends, I want to finish this job and I want them to remember that they did get my wife and I won't let them get away with it. I do not necessarily feel that death is a reality. I do not deny death. But the way they did it, they killed the mother of my children so it's very personal for me. And before I finish, when my life ends, I need this job done. The sooner the better."
Mr. Stephens writes "Global View," the Journal's foreign-affairs column.
Mr. Zardari shows no signs that he is stepping into that role diffidently. In an interview last Saturday with The Wall Street Journal, held under tight security at a midtown Manhattan hotel, he crafted his phrases in a tone of command. Pakistan's war, he says, is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." When he discusses Pakistan's economic crisis -- the central bank has about two months' worth of foreign currency reserves left to pay for the country's imports of oil and food -- he says he looks to the world to "give me $100 billion."
For a man who has been president for less than a month, that's an ambitious request -- all the more given his checkered past. Mr. Zardari is, of course, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, the former two-time Pakistani prime minister assassinated last December shortly after her tumultuous return from an eight-year exile. He invokes her name repeatedly throughout our interview, at times to stress the importance he attaches to women's rights and empowerment, at other times to underline how personally he takes the threat of Islamic radicalism.
But Mr. Zardari is also known as "Mr. Ten Percent," a moniker he acquired thanks to his legendary reputation for graft. At one time or another, he and his late wife were suspected of profiting (or seeking to profit) from corrupt schemes involving everything from the purchase of Polish tractors and French jets to the import of gold bullion. In 2006, he even produced a diagnosis of dementia from two New York psychiatrists as part of an effort to defend himself in a corruption case in Britain.
These days, Mr. Zardari seems to be in excellent mental health -- if indeed he was ever unwell. Nor does he seem particularly vexed by his own past notoriety: All charges against him were eventually dropped in a political deal the previous government of President Pervez Musharraf struck with Bhutto, and as president he enjoys legal immunity. As for the broader corruption concerns, he all but waves them away as irrelevant. The corruption issue, he says, "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to sully democracy's good name. Foreign investors, he adds, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."
That last observation may come as news to at least a few investors -- Pakistan ranked near the bottom of Transparency International's corruption perception index in 1995, the last full year during which Bhutto was in power. Investors might also have memories of the circumstances in which Bhutto's second government collapsed in 1996.
"Since her re-election to office in 1993, [Ms. Bhutto] has run roughshod over strict fiscal and economic targets laid out by the International Monetary Fund for Pakistan's anemic economy," wrote Journal reporter Peter Waldman in November 1996. "In one of her more perplexing moves, she kept the Finance Ministry portfolio for herself, making it virtually impossible for her coalition government to muster the political will to curb Pakistan's gaping budget deficit. The lack of confidence in her government recently reached crisis proportions, with Pakistan's foreign-currency reserves plummeting below $700 million, or less than a single month's imports." At the time, Mr. Zardari occupied the post of Pakistan's minister of investments, reporting to his wife.
Put simply, the economic crisis Mr. Zardari faces today is, at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him. He alludes to this problem only once in the interview, noting that before he can hope to get foreign help he will "have to make my credibility, my case." Still, he has a simple and powerful argument to make that the world cannot allow his government to fail -- not when it's becoming increasingly plausible that Pakistan itself, with its stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads, could be toppled by al Qaeda and its allies.
"I need your help," he says more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it."
In asking for the help -- and $100 billion is no small request, even (or particularly) in the age of AIG -- Mr. Zardari is keen to insist that it not be described as aid. "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"
To his credit, Mr. Zardari's answer involves more than simply passing around the collection plate. When I ask whether he would consider a free-trade agreement with traditional archenemy India, Mr. Zardari responds with a string of welcome, perhaps even historic, surprises. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he says, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad." He speaks of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allows that he has no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"
Not only does Mr. Zardari want better ties with Delhi, he notes that "there is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbors first." He imagines Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India's huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones. For a country that spent most of its existence trying to show that it's the military equal of its neighbor, the agenda amounts to a remarkable recognition of the strides India has made in becoming a true world power.
But before Pakistan can hope to save itself by completely reshaping the situation on its eastern frontier, it has the more pressing problem of resolving the crisis to its west, in its tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. On the day of our meeting, there had been reports that Pakistani army forces had fired on U.S. aircraft operating along the border with Afghanistan, while Pakistani officials were taking an ever-tougher line against NATO commando raids against the Taliban on Pakistani soil.
Mr. Zardari seems anxious to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he says, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He goes off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledges that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."
He also acknowledges the problem that had bedeviled past efforts at U.S.-Pakistani cooperation, particularly in intelligence sharing: the widely held suspicion that Pakistani intelligence services continue to cooperate with, and even arm, the Taliban. "You know, you keep an uglier alternative around so that you may not be asked to leave," he says, in reference to Mr. Musharraf's habit of fighting Islamic radicals with one hand while protecting them with the other. Mr. Zardari refuses to go into further detail other than to say he "solved the problem"; the head of Pakistani intelligence was fired earlier this week.
Mr. Zardari seems to hope that, with the intelligence problem out of the way, a new era of cooperation can open up with the U.S. "We want to be able to share [U.S.] intelligence," he says. "We need helicopters, we need night goggles, we need equipment of that sort." He stresses the need for precision and finesse in fighting Islamic militants, rather than large-scale military force. "My eventual concept is that we should be taking them on as they are, as criminals." Of Osama bin Laden he says, "the minute I make anybody my enemy, he becomes as big as I am."
In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asks. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."
The effects of such a disparity are increasingly in evidence. The recent bombing of Islamabad's Marriott hotel, in an area that is under particularly tight security controls, is a fresh reminder that Pakistan's terrorist problem extends well beyond the tribal hinterlands.
Speaking of the attack, Mr. Zardari again brings the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asks. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."
It's a fair point. And it leads Mr. Zardari to a kind of peroration, the case he has to make that he is, after all, the right man for Pakistan in its hour of peril -- however improbable that may seem given everything that is known or suspected about his past.
"You know, every life has its end," he says. "So, before mine ends, I want to finish this job and I want them to remember that they did get my wife and I won't let them get away with it. I do not necessarily feel that death is a reality. I do not deny death. But the way they did it, they killed the mother of my children so it's very personal for me. And before I finish, when my life ends, I need this job done. The sooner the better."
Mr. Stephens writes "Global View," the Journal's foreign-affairs column.
Last edited:
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Oh common have a heart well look at it as investment by the Americans to save there banks.
This is how its going to work you will give Him the money(Not people of Pakistan)he will transfer all of it in US bank hence saving the bank from bankruptcy so Americans should look at it as investment its a good investment so stop complaining and right the Check.
