Rense.com cannot be considered a reliable source. (My own articles excepted, perhaps.)
US invaded Iraq on the premise of them having nukes. Wasn't bombing a country to the stone age an example of violating international law.
Nukes was only one of the reasons and no, "bombing a country to the stone age" is not in and of itself an "example of violating international law", nor is that what the U.S. did in Iraq.
Its easy to say anyway when half the laws in the world arena and UN are made by you. You are a thug and a bully which will ultimately fall.
With the exception of certain Chapter VII Resolutions of the SC, the UN does not make international law; international laws are made between countries. While the C7 Resolution outlawing Pakistan's proxy support of terrorists did not have Pakistan's vote - because Pakistan wasn't on the SC - it did have the vote of Bangladesh.
It is true that Americans though don't give a crap about our people when they are killed.
Your memory is very selective. Americans have helped Pakistanis out of many political-military fixes and numerous natural disasters, yes?
More Iraqis and Afghans and others have been killed rather than Americans. In fact more Americans are killed by their furniture-
What you're saying is, "I haven't killed that many people as xxxx, so let me commit crimes and profit by them."
Military dictators were the ones who received the most vocal support of America. Mostly because they did theior bidding without asking questions.
No, it's more because half the time Pakistan is openly ruled by the Pakistani military, and the rest of the time the military has been dominant in dealing with foreign affairs.
Lol. The largest imperialist in the world calling another nation rogue. Sweet. Not once admitting your countries role in genocide and murder.
One, you're mixing the U.S. up with Britain, or maybe the Soviets or China. Two, since Pakistan is not an American "satellite", it is Pakistan and its ruling Muslims who are responsible for their own decisions - and their consequences.
Pakistanis generally want the Kashmiris to decide their future. Indians want to rule Kashmir.
We're very far from ISIS being a U.S./Israel proxy, aren't we?
Shameless American policy is displayed in this post of yours as lying and deflecting attention is American policy.
Where did I lie? Once I showed ISIS wasn't a U.S./Israel "proxy army" why did you choose to rant on and on about "American policy"?
Why did you support Zia Ul Haq, the man who received the most support from the USA. He was the biggest mullah and terror supporter in the history of Pakistan
Support was cut way back after Z.A.B.'s assassination. But once the Soviets invaded Afghanistan U.S. policymakers saw the USSR as reaching for the Gulf and supported Zia to the hilt. Zia had unusual credibility, having earned the trust of Americans, Arabs, Israelis, etc. when he commanded all in kicking the PLO out of Jordan in 1970, and in de-fusing a terror attack by Muslims in the U.S. in 1978. I suppose American policymakers thought they could trust Zia to control extremists in their proxy war with the Soviet Union - the U.S. supplied money and weapons, Zia controlled where it went.
Change America with Pakistan. And then try to answer the question yourself.
It might be for the best for all American financial support to Pakistan to be cut off. You'd have to collect taxes among yourselves. You'd have to conduct international relations with greater reliability and honesty to earn economic rewards. The result might well be a great moral improvement in Pakistan - if the militants didn't burn the country first, that is.
