3 ms·

The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).

smt88 1y ago
Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.
- happyopossum 1y ago
  Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.
  - smt88 1y ago
    "No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart" There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.
tonyhart7 1y ago
"US isn't interested in picking sides" but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.) Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.
Jtsummers 1y ago
Historic policies don't apply to the current administration. It's really anybody's guess at this point what the US would do if this conflict ratchets up significantly.
hackandthink 1y ago
"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s." "U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia
- ivell 1y ago
  In context: The Blood Telegram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K... It was an active decision by the US.
kumarvvr 1y ago
> Historically it has tried to be friendly with both By funding a known miliary dictator (Pervez Musharraf), for decades, helping strengthen the military rule in Pakistan. So much for "spreading democracy"

smt88 1y ago

Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.

happyopossum 1y ago
Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.
- smt88 1y ago
  "No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart" There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.

tonyhart7 1y ago

"US isn't interested in picking sides" but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.) Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.

Jtsummers 1y ago

Historic policies don't apply to the current administration. It's really anybody's guess at this point what the US would do if this conflict ratchets up significantly.

hackandthink 1y ago

"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s." "U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia

ivell 1y ago
In context: The Blood Telegram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K... It was an active decision by the US.

kumarvvr 1y ago

> Historically it has tried to be friendly with both By funding a known miliary dictator (Pervez Musharraf), for decades, helping strengthen the military rule in Pakistan. So much for "spreading democracy"