"And spare me the fables of gallentry and path of self righteous b.s...The u.s. has more blood on its hand through the use of proxy regimes than any other country in the world..."
Those fables are about Afghanistan and include a considerable number of other countries devoted to the same cause as America and the U.N. Quit pontificating without relevance. It's your proxies at war against a U.N. mandate and forty plus nations in Afghanistan here and now.
That's what matters and that's what's wrong with Pakistan.
"WHAT? what what what?? America didnt have a clue about OBL? oh dear lord.
The American gov chased obl all around the world in the 90s..."
So what part of this sentence missed your reading comprehension-
"He is an enemy of America and has been since the early 90s."
Seems I'm perfectly clear that we didn't know this rich, mujahideen wannabe from KSA during the Soviet-Afghan war thus had no relationship with him.
Read more closely please.
"After reading this post of yours I question your impartiality. It seems you are concentrated more on twisting the historical facts of placing blame solely on the Pakistanis to fit an american point of view and flinging the tired old "anti-american" charge around."
The issue is sanctuary and proxy warfare by Pakistan stemming from such against the U.N. mandate, forty plus interested nations, and the afghan people. All your other entreaties, pontifications about impartiality, etc. by you mean little relative to the subject at hand.
There's no twisting of facts to be had by me, sir. You continue to attempt linkage between the taliban/A.Q. and ourselves when nothing could be further from the truth.
We've lineage reaching back to the Mujahideen. That lineage, though, includes relations with elements of such whom Pakistan have made enemies.
Our break with both was clear in 1989 when we left. We needed the Russians and Indians to intercede with the N.A. to re-enter Afghanistan in 2001. We knew nobody who could provide us a foothold.
Pakistanis act as though America was supposed to stay following the Soviet departure. Why?
You don't wonder about the PRC, Great Britain, France, or the gulf states. The UAE and the KSA didn't return until 1996 when they recognized the taliban government.
America certainly had no historical interest there previously. Had we stayed, we'd been vulnerable though to accusations of neo-imperial ambitions in the region-perhaps accusations made by Pakistan.
Most of all, do you believe the Soviet Union would have ever left Afghanistan if they were promised America would immediately fill the void along their southern tier of Soviet socialist states?
Of course not. Gorbachev would have been strung up and hung from the Kremlin's highest tower for allowing America to encamp along the Soviet southern border.
Twisting facts, indeed.
Thanks.
Then some Indian posters will join the Americans in pointing out Pakistan's misdirections in the WOT. Then some Pakistanis will post something either about India's inability to design its own weapons or India's involvement in Afghanistan being suspect or sometimes just level allegations that either Israel or India were the actual culprits of the 9/11 and other terrorist blasts in the world. Now in this thread some poster started a new prophesy claiming that some saffron robed sadhu was responsible for 9/11 
