Featured America Has Lost a Proxy War against Pakistan

[IceCold]

And you think that India would not have done that anyway, permission or no permission

And the US the sole superpower was so damn powerless that it couldnt tell India to back off?? Just how naive are you?

 

[VCheng]

And the US the sole superpower was so damn powerless that it couldnt tell India to back off?? Just how naive are you?

Your naivete is brilliant (not)!: why should USA tell India or anyone else to back off, unless it serves US national interests? Power is never exercised pointlessly in international geopolitics, only to serve national interests If Pakistan wants USA to help it out in any way, it must be able to make the case how doing so would help US national interests. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

i know bactria is a weird name its my grandmothers last name
as if bactria still existed truely weird most people have no idea what it means anyway XD
my actual last name which is from my fathers side also begins with b and a so i use bactria sometimes sometimes just a bat

For a second I thought you were from bactria aka greek satrapy of bactria in modern day Afghanistan.

 

[IceCold]

Your naivete is brilliant (not)!: why should USA tell India or anyone else to back off, unless it serves US national interests? Power is never exercised pointlessly in international geopolitics, only to serve national interests If Pakistan wants USA to help it out in any way, it must be able to make the case how doing so would help US national interests. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

This is terrorism we are talking about. So US was supporting Indian terrorism by turning a blind eye because it served its national interest. Pakistan was already helping US out by providing corridors if nothing else, in return all we go was indian sponsored terrorism and a cold shoulder from the US demanding us to do more.
By the way you answered your own question why would US destabilize a nuclear country? Because it served its US national interest or for that matter it did not serve US interest to stop India from destabilizing Pakistan by sponsoring terrorism.

 

[doorstar]

The day when Malhama is upon us all, all that hot air, will fizzle out into nothingness. That day, those clowns who masquerade as Muslims but have their loyalties in Washington DC, London and Paris .... we turn to dust. Try crackin a joke then!

I don't joke, never learnt to.
[ those monafeqs who are] Ungrateful to the Creation: [are]Ungrateful to the Creator.

 

[Nasr]

[ those monafeqs who are] Ungrateful to the Creation:

Most certainly those of HIS creation that bring oppression, tyranny, carnage and hegemony, are not ones to be grateful to, rather to fight against as they seek to oppress those who seek to establish their faith.

 

[VCheng]

This is terrorism we are talking about. So US was supporting Indian terrorism by turning a blind eye because it served its national interest. Pakistan was already helping US out by providing corridors if nothing else, in return all we go was indian sponsored terrorism and a cold shoulder from the US demanding us to do more.
By the way you answered your own question why would US destabilize a nuclear country? Because it served its US national interest or for that matter it did not serve US interest to stop India from destabilizing Pakistan by sponsoring terrorism.

If what India is doing to Pakistan is terrorism, then what would you call what Pakistan has done to India in the recent past? It all depends on one's point of view, does it not? Hence, the only reliable yardstick must be serving national interests by any and all sides equally.

How easily you like to forget that it was USA that helped start Pakistan's nuclear program, and the real reason there is no need to go after its nuclear weapons is that they are the best guarantor of stability in a volatile region. They have ensured at least 50 years of relative peace, with only limited skirmishes and no open war. Thus, having both Pakistan and India locked in a MAD situation serves US interests, and therefore there is no need for USA to destabilize either side in this regard.

 

[VCheng]

The Kerry-Lugar Bill, demonized as it was by the military, was actually designed to develop Pakistan's civil governance structures, which would have benefitted its people in the long run.

I said the above a while ago. I wonder how many who were furious at that are now willing to accept that not supporting the supremacy of civilian institutions (that many are protesting for now) was a mistake back then?

 

[R2D2]

You should do more

 

[SaadH]

America lost a proxy war against Pakistan in Afghanistan, but won a spectacular war of colonization by completely buying off the Pakistani establishment and deep state.