Well at least you are close Audi.

Auditor #9 wrote:

What's going on in Pakistan though does anyone know at all ? The fact that they do have nukes could make all this Anglo stuff and worse look like a farmer's fight out of a Paddy Kavanagh poem.

Obama was making noises about this Pakistan stuff long ago but I don't really know what it's about to be honest. Is it radical Muslim tribes that are threatening to take over and turn it into another Afghanistan ?

The economy underwent its own mini-tiger in recent years, but has hit a severe rough patch. Its debt rating has been decreased in the last few weeks, with many foreign banks believing that it is close to defaulting on its loans. The IMF has been asked for 'guidance' with its budget submitted to the IMF for approval. Pakistan was thought likely to be the 'Islamic Tiger', with a low wage economy and immense potential for growth. However as with other tigers around the world it has been disproportionately hit by the collapse, and is finding it difficult to service it loans. The problem is not just the worldwide economic slump but what is seen as the ineptitude of the president and government. As with other tiger economies, it is surreal to read reports back from 2007 and hear widespread praise for Pakistan (it tried to model its approach on the celtic tiger) and how the future was rosy, only to read reports from the end of 2008 with comments like 'what the hell happened?' when the apparently unstoppable growth stopped.

So is this airstrike something to do with the IMF

Auditor #9 wrote:

So is this airstrike something to do with the IMF

No. The airstrike is to do with the fact the current Pakistani government is in chaos, with an ineffective government and president, and economy rapidly running out of money and an army severely alienated from the government. Right now even if the government wanted to it couldn't deal with 'foreigners' (what the Pakistani government calls 'Al Quaeda operatives'). The relationship between the civilian government and the military is such that if ordered to attack the 'foreigners' the government could not be sure it wouldn't attack it instead and stage a coup. The involvement of the IMF is a symptom of the crisis engulfing Pakistan. So is the fact that America ends up attacking the Al Quaeda people instead of asking the Pakistani government to do it. They believe the current Pakistani government is so weak and ineffectual it couldn't cut a slice of butter let alone attack militants in its own border.

youngdan wrote:

See what I mean Squire. Papal will absolutely refuse to watch the two speechs and he returns with reams of bullscour. He says paragraphs are similiar when the same person writes different speechs. Well no shit Sherlock. The 2 speechs are not similiar Papal they are word for word exact in their entirety.

Even a dunce knows it is the same speach written by one individual.

Papal is always good for a laugh

In that case I will have to answer it for him.

The only way that two people can make exactly the same speech is if someone sent it to them. They were asked to make that speech.

Unfortunately (for them) they did not realise it had wider distribution and that it was to form the basis of their speech. They were supposed to embellish and change to fit their personal style and local situation, either that or the persons involved are complete fools. What happened was a bit like the under grad thesis in low grade universities, where they just take large chunks of someone else's text and paste it in, and feel ever so clever. Unfortunately we give degrees to such people and they can rise to very high office. What an egalitarian world we live in.

Pakistan is not the most stable of countries. It has a population of around 170 million but whilst it is overwhelmingly Muslim there are sharp divisions within that population. The economy is in dire straights and I believe it now imports rather than exports wheat.

The internal politics of the country are bedevilled by division, outside interference and territorial disputes. It has lost several wars with India and relies on nuclear weapons to deter.

In that context along comes Uncle Sam and bombs. So what is the likely consequence? Without question it will reinforce existing views of the west and the USA in particular. Does that aid terrorists or does it weaken them?

I still think better to follow the money trail and strike those funding these organisations or at least those that they can strike. You also need to win a hearts and minds campaign and they are definately not suceeding in that.

Cactus

There is no question that economics can be used as a tool of war. Indeed booth are usually interrelated. The West has stupidly been sucked into a position whereby its wealth and production is relocating and has been for over 30 years. It is due to policies that suited those with wealth and not those who worked and produced the goods.

In this new world the sort of question you should now ask is, how much will it cost to reunite China with Taiwan?

Obama is in Davos. He was interviewed about the brown-coloured fan over on Wall Street and referred to the $$$$20billion bonuses those people gave themselves. He's fairly pissed off that they are still shamefully looking for money and bailouts.

Unfortunately all the money has been given to Wall Street and there's much more on the way.