[bluedevil2k]

I don't see your point here. The US funded Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war? What's that have to do with the US's decision to kill the world's most wanted terrorist in a country giving him safety?

[madeuptempacct]

My point is that betraying the sovereignity of allies and claiming the higher moral ground is mutually exclusive. You can't be someone's friend and then punch them in the face when it's convenient. Pakistan is a shitty country, with shitty practices, but it IS an ally. Note that Saudi Arabia is a VERY shitty country, and is currently a strong ally.

"I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States"

"Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States...

Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.

[bluedevil2k]

This immediately brings to mind the Simpsons, where Phil Hartman as Lionel Hutz says "there's the truth, and then there's the truth (with a smiling face)". The US and Pakistan are allies in name only. Let's the politicians save face on both sides. But that's hardly the truth. The US didn't tell Pakistan about the OBL operation because they didn't trust them. You trust allies, you distrust non-allies. As a comparison, if OBL was in India or France, don't you think the US would have worked with these countries on the mission?

[madeuptempacct]

That's my point - being allies "in name only" is misleading and dishonest. Anyway, imo, we are close to on the same page and are arguing semantics, so let's stop wasting each other's time (that's really directed at both of us, not a passive-aggressive stab at you).