HouseOfSteak t1_j6h749n wrote on January 30, 2023 at 8:08 AM

Reply to comment by Logical-Dog-7387 in US to renew efforts to reduce India's oil, military 'dependency' on Russia by Falls_stuff

>$450 package to India

The one you mentioned.

I copy-pasted exactly what you said, and I found the word 'sale' in most reports regarding it. Pay attention to your own info.

>If they like pakistani money why are they trying to friends with India now ?

Because the US wants to cut Russia off and will happily supply India's needs, if it so wants - and counter to your narratives, is.

Pay attention to current events.

>Yup, they got a lot of free aid. Just google

No, I'm not going to go digging up your own claims for you.

>idiot

And that's the sign that you have nothing left to add.

Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6h98i7 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 8:38 AM

I never anything about any packages to India. Read again And do you really think we are idiots not to take a deal if it's beneficial to us. ? But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers And I did my digging for my claims .just not willing to do it again something thag you can do on your own time.

HouseOfSteak t1_j6hapo0 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 8:59 AM

Fine, that was a typo. I meant the one to Pakistan that you mentioned right from the start.

>And do you really think we are idiots to take a deal if it's beneficial to us. ?

.....I assume this is a typo.

You're supposed to take deals that are beneficial to you - it's a rationally sound decision. Why wouldn't you?

>But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers

Do you have any actual evidence that the US has had over $15B in defense trade with Pakistan in a single decade compared to the defense trade with India?

Just another claim that you refuse to give the slightest bit of context to.

>And I did my digging for my claims

Sure you did. Which is why you have yet to actually give any workable identifying information to mostly anything you said.

Seriously, the most actual information of substance that you have was the 450m number, and you were incorrect because that wasn't free aid - it was a sale for the f16 package.

Logical-Dog-7387 t1_j6hbofv wrote on January 30, 2023 at 9:13 AM

>Fine, that was a typo. I meant the one to Pakistan that you mentioned right from the start.

Okay

>I assume this is a typo.

Yes. I will correct it

>But with every US deal beneficial there is a larger US deed where we come out as losers

>Do you have any actual evidence that the US has had over $15B in defense trade with Pakistan in a single decade compared to the defense trade with India?

Just another claim that you refuse to give the slightest bit of context to.

Your support for pak side in war, sales of discounted weapons and planes which india protested and you said won't be used against India but eventually ended up using against india and even guns ending up in terrorist hands.. Financial aids. The unwillingness to sanction pakistan on terrorist organisation support. And your own state department saying it gave 32B in aid to pakistan .

>Sure you did. Which is why you have yet to actually give any workable identifying information to mostly anything you said.

Your congress alone approved 18B in military aid for pakistan in early 2000 to mid 2010s . These are easily available records online and in US department records. I am just not willing to spend the time to prepare and spoon feed that information to you.

HouseOfSteak t1_j6hd53j wrote on January 30, 2023 at 9:34 AM

>Okay

So.....it was a sale - not 'free money'.

>Your support for pak side in war

I never gave my support to that.

> you said won't be used against India

Again, I never stated any of this.

>And your own state department saying it gave 32B in aid to pakistan .

OK seriously, did you miss the part where I never stated I was American?

But that isn't military funding, it's humanitarian funding. Rather big difference. Did you forget the floods and earthquakes?

> The unwillingness to sanction pakistan on terrorist organisation support.

Being an alleged terrorist organization support base hasn't stopped India from not sanctioning Saudi Arabia either, so there goes that 'but they don't sanction terrorist states!' angle.

Hypocrisy.

>Your congress alone approved 18B in military aid for pakistan in early 2000 to mid 2010s

Ah, ah, ah! Wrong again.

That includes economic aid as well - not just military aid.

konichiwa-minna_san t1_j6hzfrp wrote on January 30, 2023 at 1:50 PM

>I never gave my support to that.

Thanks. I am sure the Indian govt will love to have good relations with you, whoever you are. But the other guy was talking about the US govt's support for Pakistan in case you haven't noticed.

>Again, I never stated any of this

Nice. Still talking about the US govt though.

>Being an alleged terrorist organization support base hasn't stopped India from not sanctioning Saudi Arabia

Has the US govt termed Saudi a terror state and requested India to sanction it? Wait...Has the USA sanctioned Saudi yet?

>That includes economic aid as well - not just military aid.

Here: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818396/pakistan-aid-military-trump-pompeo-afghanistan

From the article:

But since 2002, the US has given Pakistan over $14 billion in aid to combat terrorism and insurgents in the region. That money is meant to reimburse Pakistan for its ongoing efforts to defeat militant groups, and it forms part of the $33 billion in total help that the US has given Pakistan over the same time period.

That $14 billion is military aid. Unless you want to play with semantics and call that an "anti-terrorism" package.