Is the US to blame in anyway for Pakistan's present position after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ended?
414988
No.  The United States is to blame for what it is doing now, right, wrong or indifferent.  Each and every country is to blame for their own actions and inactions.\n\nA culture of warlords and tribes will never act like a culture of gentlemen farmers.  Xenophobia and religious intolerance can run deep and with much fervor.\n\nAs a word of historical reminding, according to the British, Americans invented and developed the very concept of gorilla warfare.  We did not invent it, but stoled it from the indigenous people of this continent.  Others have learned well.
786568
NO!\nAnd the only people who claim the U.S. government was involved in 9/11 are MUSLIMS who are trying to fix their public relations problem!\nNotice all the websites with false claims to the origins of 9/11 come from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and other Muslim countries.  These people are simply trying to deflect their guilt by shifting the blame to the Americans, the Israelis, and anyone else whom they hate.
164008
I don't think so only way if the Pakistan return his land to the INDIA where was belong before,and!! if they help anti terorist ,then we can say yes,but Pakistan is helping the terrorist from under the table,100% I know them and they know and I know too where is osama ben laden,and stiupid America he don't know who is his enemy.
590653
No war is not Right. Even the Mahabharat war was wrong but it happend. Also it should be noted that Pakistan is the work of the British. But the sad thing is that the problem sees no soloution in the near future. It will take only a miracle to solve this problem.
933990
It seems most logical to blame those directly responsible for beginning the mess: the Bush Administration. It was they who went around mustering support for the war at the start and then went in over and above the United Nations and invaded. It would be inaccurate to blame the Democrats, they were not in power. It would be inaccurate to blame the 'Liberal Media' because there was much more talking up of the war amongst the likes of Fox etc than there were from more 'Liberal' media sources. Blaming Liberals or people in the blue states is silly for the same reason as blaming the Democrats. And to blame "Islamo Fascists" is just plain uninformed. Anyone who has any idea of the Middle East pre-9/11 and the Iraq invasion knew that Saddam and Osama were as far away from allies as they could be. Osama hated the secularist rule of Saddam in Iraq. And although Al Qaeda is not the only "Islamo Fascist" group, it is far above and beyond the power and reach of any other such group.
1130366
PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN GEN.PARVEZ SAID AND I QUOTE," NEVER IN THE HISTORY SO MUCH WAS STOLEN BY SO FEW."DONT YOU AGREE WITH HIM. LOOK AT BENAZEER SHE BAGGED MAY BE A BILLION ,THAT IS DOLLARS NOT RUPEES .GEN ZIA AND THE BOYS MAY BE 10 BILLION 2 BILLION ALONE FROM LOOTING OF BCCI BANK,HALF A BILLION SELLING ARMS TO IRAN UNDER THE TABLE.EVEN THE SERVANTS DRIVE MERCEDES BENZEZ AND SERVANTS HAVE SERVANTS.NEVER MIND YAHYA KHAN OR AYUB KHAN,THE SHIT HIT THE FAN AFTER RUSSIANS INVADED AFGANISTAN AND LEFT.THE TALIBAN TOOK OVER THE CULTIVATION OF OPIUM AND ISI BRASS TOOK OVER HEROIN.NOW THAT IS SERIOUS MONEY.MAY BE 10 BILLION A YEAR,OK NOW MAY BE LESS BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE THERE.THE ARMY BRASS COMES FROM BIG LAND OWNER FAMILIES WHY THEY WILL LEAVE ALL THIS TO MULLAH POLITICIANS WHEN THEY CAN HAVE IT WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM.THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!
523232
As the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA is certainly going to protect it's interests.  If however you are implying that there is some western conspiracy, that is utter rubbish.  \n 1. Fact, the USA and it's western allies got involved in Somalia to provide humanitarian aid to a country that was literally starving to death in front of the world.  A bunch of greedy warlords did everthing they could to disrupt this process.\n\n2.The troubles between India and Pakistan go back hundreds of years and are mainly due to intolerance of religious factions mainly Muslim and Hindu.\n\n3. Saddam Hussien and the Baath party were and are responsible for the violance in Iraq.\n\n4. Israel and the Muslim countries have been fighting for 5,000 years, far longer than the USA or England have existed.
831567
Do you really think that they have to ask permission to the Americans? I think they too have the right to make their own political alliances.\n___\n\n"Many experts predict the new closeness between the world's only superpower and Islamabad's fiercest rival will prompt Pakistan to develop even closer ties with its longtime strategic security partner, China.\n\nPakistan needs a deterrent against India.\n\nThe animosity between the two countries dates to partition in August 1947, when the British divided their former colony into two states. India was meant to be a secular democracy and Pakistan, a homeland for South Asian Muslims. More than six million Muslims migrated to Pakistan, and more than four million Hindus and Sikhs moved to India. Tremendous violence and upheaval during the partition process left more than one million people dead.\nIn the half-century since, Pakistan and India have fought three wars and come close a few other times. The unresolved issue of the disputed territory of Kashmir and periodic military buildups on both sides have kept tensions high. Many Pakistanis still worry that India wants to reunite the territory under its control. Both countries tested nuclear weapons in 1998".\n\nQuoted from: \nChina and Pakistan: A Deepening Bond\nAuthor:Esther Pan\nMarch 8, 2006\nhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/10070/china_and_pakistan.html
119910
That's a scary tought.\n\nI don't think such a question can be put under such a hypothesis, since both countries are nuclear powers AND both governments proved to be strong-headed.\nIn the event of open conflict I believe neither will concede defeat without first resorting to their nuclear arsenal (after all, Pakistan built its arsenal for this very purpose, to counter the Indian threat). If such was the case, I doubt the human race will live to see the next day.\nIndia can't neutralize Pakistan's friend, unless it gains that permanent seat with veto in the UN Security Council, but then India wouldn't need to invade Pakistan, that would be too stupid.
354879
They did show a negative image of pakistani peace keepers as individual force.The fact is US and Pakistani troops were under a single UN command.\nSecondly pakistani troops saved amercian ass and more pakistani soldiers died than americans on that day.\nHollywood did not showed that.
178165
Pakistan can never really become an ally. After 9-11 we said we would crack down on terrorism worldwide. Shortly thereafter a militant group with Pakistani support bombed the legislative  building in India (not sure why I cant think of its name ><). We demanded that Pakistan bring justice to those responsible because we knew what terrorist group that was and we also knew that they were trained under the Pakistani military. Pakistani dictator (also name alludes me and i dont feel like looking it up) arrested 200 of the terrorists but less than 2 months later when the international community had bigger things to worrry about ie middle east vs usa they let every single one of them go. In short Pakistan supports terrorism and we can only deal with that contry by temporarily intimidating them into helping us . When left to their own means they will work against us. Also, India is a good ally for us (as bush decided when he gave them our nuclear weapons blueprints very recently) for exactly the reasons another answer'er stated because they help keep china in check. India and Pakistan are at each others throats and have been since the Islamic world (formor pakistani boundaries-not exactly the same pakistan of todays borders but the pakistan of today could be considered the core of the old which) descimated India in a series of violent wars trying to convert all of india to islam.
1153959
Um, yeah.  You're right all the way.  We left the job half finished and ran off to start another war we didn't need to.  Now Osama is still out there, terrorists have a new breeding ground in the chaotic Iraq, and druglords and the Taliban are resurfacing in Afghanistan.  I wish I had a better answer for you.
390331
There are two reasons for this. One, America stands to profit from a leader like Musharraf. Musharraf may have snatched the position of power in an unscruplous way, but he still manages to keep his country fairly peaceful and does not encourage jehad(holy war) openly. So it makes sense having a leader with a popular vote (despite no democracy), one who does not bomb India/the world. \n\nSecondly, India's association with the US is fine, but it would never accept any war attacks on China from its soil. The next best bet? Pakistan of course. Pakistan also benefits economically out of this friendship - F 16s, nuclear technology, emergency aid et al. So the US actually benefits having a base to declare war on China(similar to Puerto Rico to keep an eye on Cuba) \n\nNow, having voiced my opinion on the Pak friendship, US actually preaches democracy and tries to install the same whereever possible. But when trying to install democracy or instigating change does not benefit the US economically, it does not do anything. Makes sense, after all US is a capitalistic economy. \n\nIts all a case of how-is-it-going-to-help-me and that is really what makes the US great!
653625
They were together at one point but because of religious differences (India is Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim mainly) they were split (actually Afghanistan was also part of the country).  It was under British control.  When Britain removed themselves it was put into 3 separate countries.  Yes Kashmir is a disputed area between them and will always be.  I think it is both of their Achilles heel in moving up from 3rd world countries.
404409
Certainly not.  Bin Laden took credit for it, and he and his buddies plotted it without any help from the US.  It's ridiculous to even give this idea a moment's consideration.
1076403
The USSR invaded Afghanistan, but never captured it as you claimed. That is because the United States assisted the Afghanis against Russia. After all, Russia was our enemy at that time in the cold war and the Afghanis had done nothing to warrant an attack. In return for our assistance, Bin Laden decided to bite the hand that fed him and turn on America in his quest to commit terrorist acts. Is it wrong to try to help someone and be a friend? Is it Americas fault that Bin Laden wanted to commit terrorist acts against us? Just goes to show that you can nothing to help these people. They are the enemy of the world. And you are a stupid jackass!
478538
Yes.  Millitary action has to be taken against Pakisthan so that the terrorist problems in Kashmir will come to end.  The right person to take millitary acgtion is US. Only Bush dare do it. The only male President US has ever seen is none other than Mr. Bush.  Like he has controlled terrorism in Afgan and Iraq, he should step in Pak and control its nose poking activity. Then India will always be a trusted friend of US.